Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Noise Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

AUTHORISED OFFICERS

`A local authority shall by resolution identify officers who are to be authorised to act on their behalf in relation to all matters contained herein:.—[Mr. Thomason.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Thomason: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 35, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, leave out
`who is authorised for the purposes of this section.'.

Mr. Thomason: I want at the outset to make it clear that I am not opposing the spirit of the Bill, which I support. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on introducing such an important Bill, and we are grateful to him for the time that he has spent both on its preparation and on its passage through the House.
There are one or two questions around the periphery of the Bill that need clarification, either today or later in another place. One of those questions is the subject of my new clause. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker—perhaps on Third Reading—I want to raise other matters, such as the practicalities of enforcement, right of entry and so on.
It is well known that local authority environmental health officers—who will no doubt be responsible for enforcing the Bill—are usually properly authorised by their local authorities. The Bill is important—it gives significant powers to local authorities—and that importance and significance should be acknowledged within local authorities. It would not be appropriate to say to the junior office boy or office girl, "Off you go on your bicycle or in your car and deal with that noise nuisance." That would not treat the issue with the significance it deserves.
Enforcement will require properly qualified officers who know how to deal with the public and who are used to handling potentially sensitive and even explosive

issues. We all know that problems with noise often involve neighbour disputes, which can put the public peace at risk if they are not handled sensitively and correctly. It is essential that local authorities instruct appropriate officers with the necessary qualifications, not least to handle the proper equipment to measure noise.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I share my hon. Friend's view about the general intentions behind the Bill, and join in his congratulations to our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
The point being made by my hon. Friend ignores the fact that the vast majority of local authorities already employ officers to deal with noise nuisance. I have letters from the two local authorities in my constituency—Tendring district council and Colchester borough council—each stating that it has an environmental community services department and a director of environmental and technical services. Those authorities are already dealing with the issue of noise.
The Bill is about giving additional powers to those who are already coping with the terrible problems in people's neighbourhoods; it is not about setting up new departments, which might be an unnecessary expense. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that his new clause will not require local authorities to go to the expense of setting up new departments?

Mr. Thomason: I am delighted to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is absolutely no reason why a local authority should set up a new department. However, we are all aware that, on occasion, local authorities want to extend their bureaucratic empires, and also that any piece of legislation is capable of being construed in a way that we would find unsatisfactory. Whether or not the new clause includes a specific authority is irrelevant to that point, although my hon. Friend is right to say that none of us should expect new departments to be created.
I said earlier that I anticipated that enforcement would be the responsibility of local authority environmental health officers. I stand to be corrected if others have different views, but I think that they are the appropriate officers.
I well remember from my days in local government that, when we appointed an environmental health officer, it was usual for the council to pass a resolution authorising an officer to deal with a whole variety of statutory powers and duties that were imposed on or could be undertaken by the local authority. I am merely suggesting that, when the Bill becomes an Act, its powers should be added to the list requiring resolutions.
In other words, a specific authority should be given to the environmental health officer, so that, in conducting their duties, he or she can say to members of the public that they are authorised persons and not any odd bod recruited by the local authority, that an appropriate resolution has been passed giving them the authority to deal with the matters, that they have such authority by virtue of the position they occupy, and that the local authority has considered the matter sufficiently grave and weighty to note that they are suitable persons to undertake the responsibilities.
The purpose of my new clause is not to create new empires or lead to local government taking on new employees, but simply to ensure that the matter is treated


with the importance it deserves and that officers have the protection of being able to refer to an appropriate council resolution to show that they are statutorily authorised to deal with noise nuisance.
Amendment No. 35 is a technical adjustment, which, consequent on the adoption of the new clause, would change the drafting of the Bill. I invite the House to endorse the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) for his contribution to the debate. If I may anticipate the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I should like to make one or two points.
I appreciate that the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has tabled his new clause and amendment is entirely supportive of the Bill's aims. I understand his concerns about local authority personnel, and I am conscious that he speaks with great experience and some distinction on local authority matters. Although the Government will of course carefully consider his points, I have something of a presumption against the amendments at the moment, because I am concerned about the effect that they would have on the operations of local authorities.
The amendments would largely override the useful power available to a local authority to make arrangements for the exercise of its functions under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section allows a local authority to arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by a committee, a sub-committee or an officer of the authority. It further provides that such a committee may, in effect, further delegate any functions to a sub-committee or officer of the authority.
As I have said, I am concerned that the amendment and the new clause would override that power. For example, under clause 2(1), the amendments would mean that the only person who could investigate complaints would be a person who was named by a resolution of the full council. That could give rise to operational difficulties and practicalities, particularly if the authorised person named by the resolution of the full council was not available. I am sure that we can all envisage certain circumstances in which it might be difficult—if not impossible—to hold a meeting of the full council to pass a necessary resolution if the named person were not available.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is there misapprehension about the new clause and the Local Government Act to which my hon. Friend has referred? I get the impression that the Local Government Act specifies an official by name rather than by function. I get the impression from the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove is talking about specifying officers by function. If officers are specified by function, and we are talking about an environmental health department, more than one person would be involved. It would therefore make it much easier on a busy, hot Saturday night, when there were many calls on

environmental health officers, to be able to deal with problems. The new clause may make it easier for a council rather than more difficult.

Mr. Clappison: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. As I said, I am prepared to reflect on the matter, but as it stands, I am concerned that the amendments might make the provisions more inflexible by restricting the operation of the powers to local authority officers who had been named by the resolution of the full council.
In the event of such an officer being unavailable, it would be regrettable if the exercise of the powers were constrained, and the Bill's intention thereby defeated. I am certainly prepared to consider the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has made. As he said, it may be possible to consider the matter with a view to dealing with it another place.

Mr. Thomason: Only a limited number of environmental health officers, technicians or whoever, would be able to operate the noise equipment. Such equipment is quite expensive, and I am sure that most local authorities would not be happy if someone who was not trained had an opportunity to fiddle with the buttons and possibly damage it. Since only a limited number of people are qualified to use it, those authorised to do so are quite a narrow band. If, unfortunately, nobody qualified were available, the local authority would probably not be able to conduct an inquiry anyway.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an entirely reasonable point, and speaks, as I said, with great experience of local authorities. My concern is to make the provision as flexible and effective as possible for local authorities. That is the way in which I shall approach the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove made an important point about the identity of the person exercising the power when people were being investigated, particularly where powers are being exercised regarding entry and seizure under clause 10. It is important that the identity of the person exercising the power should be known. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 10(3), which meets concerns about identification of persons exercising the power by requiring the person entering a property and seizing any equipment to produce the authority if required to do so. I hope that that sets to rest any concerns that my hon. Friend might have.
I appreciate the points made, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove were to consider withdrawing his amendments, I would reflect further on them—without, of course, giving any guarantee that any further amendments would necessarily result.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) for his most kind remarks; they are much appreciated.
I too think that the amendments are extremely important. It is very important that it should be clearly established that anyone operating any equipment by which people may be found guilty of a criminal offence should be properly qualified to do so, and that the equipment should be properly checked, guaranteed against a check


sheet and efficient at the time of use. I understand that the very fact that we are saying so today in the House will help in any possible litigation in this area.
It is no good saying that the equipment was checked a year ago and that it was all right then, as has been said in one or two speeding cases. That cannot be right. The equipment clearly has to be right, or injustice could be done. The House is about avoiding such injustice, to ensure as far as possible justice for the citizens of this country. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has said that he will reflect on the matter, supports what I say.
The intention of the new clause is not absolutely clear, although what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said was important. The meaning of the word "identify" is not entirely clear, as I read it. As I understand it—I am sure that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—the new clause would require each local authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pass a resolution identifying the officers who were authorised to carry out the provisions on its behalf.
Personnel change all the time, so if an identification procedure was established, it would have to be updated regularly. There would be a serious possibility of dangerous slippage. If we accepted the new clause, we might create new bureaucracy, which we should seek to avoid. I think that my hon. Friend and I would, philosophically, oppose more bureaucracy.
I am sure that all hon. Members are aware that there will be occasions when, such are the demands on the noise complaints service of a local authority, an environmental health officer may have to be seconded from another area. That is a problem to watch. Anyone coming in from another area to undertake such work would have to be thoroughly competent.
The Bill lays a duty on local authorities to ensure that suitable people are appointed to the task. My remarks, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and the Minister, have underlined that point. If people are not competent, there will be a clear defence in a case brought under the Act, as I hope and believe the Bill will become. That point must be covered carefully.
I do not believe that the new clause would add to the effectiveness of the Bill, because of its lack of absolute clarity. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will reflect on the matter. I cannot make a commitment, but I believe that what my hon. Friend has said is important.

Mr. Jenkin: Our big anxiety about the Bill, however desirable it is, is the cost and complexity of implementation. One of my local authorities, Tendring district council, has written to me pointing out that the obligation under clause 2 to take "reasonable steps to investigate" all complaints between 11 pm and 7 am would require the current voluntary out-of-hours emergency-only service to be replaced by a formal standby service staffed by paid officers.
If the paid officers must be people who have been nominated in a resolution passed by the full council, as proposed in the new clause, many people will have to be invested with powers under the Bill. Do we seriously imagine that, in managing a comprehensive service throughout the night every night, all the people involved will be expert in operating the noise-measuring equipment? Would it not be better for local authorities to have more flexibility?
If there is sickness or holiday absence, different people will be on standby duty attempting to fulfil the obligations. Councils may operate a system whereby they call out the experts after officers have visited the scene of a complaint. After a preliminary investigation, they may then call out the experts with the noise-measuring equipment. This is a complicated area, and local authorities will want to gain operational experience before deciding how to deploy their resources.
The new clause would further complicate matters—I share the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister—and we should pause before accepting it. When the Bill is considered in the other place, as I hope it will be, the matter will be further discussed, and further representations from local authorities may be heard.

Mr. Thomason: In view of the comments made this morning, and especially in view of my hon. Friend the Minister's undertaking to look at the matter in more detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 1

ADOPTION OF THESE PROVISIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. David Evennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 6 to 18.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after 'authority', insert—

'(a) if the local authority are the authority for an area which is a preponderantly urban area and have been so prescribed, or
(b) in the case of any authority not so prescribed.'.

No. 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
`( ) Where a local authority receive a complaint under subsection (2) and the offending dwelling is within the area of another local authority, the first local authority may act under this group of sections as if the offending dwelling were within their area, and accordingly may so act whether or not this group of sections applies to the area of the other local authority'.

Mr. Evennett: I am delighted to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on promoting the Bill and successfully furthering it in Committee—a Committee on which I was pleased to serve. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for all the time and effort he has given, not only in Committee but in discussions with many of us, including discussions on the amendment. I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Department and hon. Friends who served on the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) who gave such stalwart service in developing ideas to deal with the problem.
Tremendous work has been done to deal with the problem of noisy neighbours and noise nuisance. The Bill is the culmination of many years of work, which has brought together many different people who have


suggested ways in which to deal with a growing problem. Noise nuisance, especially the problem of noisy and inconsiderate neighbours, is the scourge of modern life. It is a particular problem in urban areas, but it is not limited to them.
Over the past decade, my borough, the London borough of Bexley, has seen a tremendous increase in noise problems. Thamesmead, an exciting new development with new people and a new environment, is part of my constituency. Thamesmead contains a variety of properties, ranging from skyscraper tower blocks to small dwellings. There has been an increase in the number of people living close together, and thus an increased density of population. With that has come an increase in the problem of noisy neighbours. Modern properties are closer together than older ones and walls are thinner, which means that noise travels further and causes even more distress for our residents.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know from our discussions in Committee, my reason for moving the amendment is not just the loud noise from music, which was highlighted in Committee and in discussions we had with my hon. Friend privately. Noise problems are also caused by do-it-yourself experts who work on home improvements very late at night or early in the morning so that they can finish the job. That is a problem that affects people across the country. Loud televisions and radios are also a problem.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that we had successful and good-humoured discussions in Committee, with contributions from Conservative and Opposition Members expressing all shades of opinion. We were constructive, and the amendments were an attempt to improve the Bill, which is a good one, but which needs more work.
My proposal in Committee that on-the-spot fines should go up from £40 to £100 met unanimous approval. Although I welcome the increase in on-the-spot fines, the general thrust of the Bill and the determination of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North to make it effective, I believe that we have not gone quite far enough. That is way I have moved the amendment.
If, after all the hours that we have spent not only in the House and in Committee but in discussions with outside organisations, including local authorities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned, the Bill is not implemented, we shall have wasted our time, and many hopes will be dashed. Good intentions are not enough. The remaining problems need to be addressed. The principles are excellent and the provisions are good, but implementation causes me some concern, which is why I tabled my amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has drafted a good Bill, but it has one flaw, which I want to emphasise again. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham emphasised it in Committee, and we cannot emphasise it enough.
Local authorities will be allowed to opt in to the provisions. That is all very well, and I hope they will, but I am worried that many will not, especially in the urban areas, where the problem is greatest and where the number

of noisy neighbours is growing. More and more of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends are suffering disturbed nights because of inconsiderate neighbours.
10 am
Local authorities will have the power to opt in, and they may do so. I certainly hope that my local borough of Bexley will. In Greater London and the other metropolitan districts, it is essential that authorities opt in. I have been campaigning for a change in the law for five years, with many colleagues from both sides of the House and with outside organisations such as the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, located in my constituency and run by Val Gibson, which has also campaigned effectively for five years.
We do not want local authorities to give excuses for not being able to implement the Bill, or indeed to give any reason, such as not being able to afford it. We have been greatly helped by other campaigning groups and by the editor and journalists of The Mail on Sunday, who have been champions of the cause. Thousands of people from all over the country have written to me saying that they want their local authorities to take action.
In Committee, we managed to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) cannot be with us today, but he was vociferous in Committee, and keen that the Bill should be implemented in Belfast, just as in London and in the other metropolitan districts in England and Wales. But if the Bill is not mandatory, local authorities, especially the crucial ones in London and other metropolitan areas, may not implement the measure.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that four out of five environmental health officers believe that many local authorities will not implement the Bill if it is not mandatory—I sympathise with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far—and does not the fact that the officers themselves think that local authorities will find excuses not to implement make the amendment all the more necessary?

Mr. Evennett: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She represents a borough in Greater London, and knows the problems only too well. She is right to say that many environmental health officers think that the Bill will not be implemented unless we toughen it and make action compulsory. I share that view, and endorse her comments.
I believe that the public will be bitterly disappointed if, after all the campaigning that we have done, including the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North in the Evening Standard to get people on board, we do not achieve what we set out to do.
In Committee, the Minister was happy with the Bill as it stood. My hon. Friend promised that there would be a campaign to ensure that his borough implemented the measure, and I remember a graphic description—the vision has stayed with me—of my hon. Friend marching up Ealing High street with the protesters, demanding that his local council implement the Bill. Knowing what a champion he is of his constituents, and how effective he is in the local community, I think that he may be


successful—but others may be less so, and may not be able to persuade their councils to do what we want them to do and implement the Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come back to that subject, but at this point may I simply say how powerful I think a local campaign can be? When, in 1987, the Labour council in Ealing put up the rates by 65 per cent., I led thousands of people through the streets to protest against that wicked rates increase, and I held a mass meeting on Ealing common, also with thousands of people. The council could do nothing. We swept the Labour councillors from power. We said, "Labour out," and they were out.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that little hint of what may be in his forthcoming memoirs. When he writes them, that will be an important chapter, and we look forward to reading the book—but not for many years yet, because we want him to continue campaigning from the Government Benches, supporting the Government and going from strength to strength.
I am afraid that that was a little digression, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to highlight my hon. Friend's determination to campaign to get his council to implement the Bill. I am sure that we shall all campaign to persuade our local authorities to do the same, but how successful we will be is a moot point. We may be successful in certain areas, but there will be other areas in which, through no fault of the campaigners, the authorities will not implement it.
That is why I tabled my amendment. I am passionate in my desire to see the Bill come into operation.

Mr. Thomason: rose—

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

Mr. Thomason: No, but I would like to speak when my hon. Friend has finished.

Mr. Evennett: My hon. Friends are enthusiastic about speaking to my amendment, and I am grateful for that.
I do not want to detain the House too long, because I know that other people are waiting to speak; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) can hardly wait to participate and give the House the benefit of his experience.
We are looking to my hon. Friend the Minister to make some additional proposals to ensure that the Bill is implemented. My amendments may be defective, or there may be other reasons why neither my hon. Friend the Minister nor my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North can accept them, but in Committee both my hon. Friends agreed to take the matter away and think about it again.
It was discussed at length in Committee, and at that time both my hon. Friends were satisfied with the Bill. I think that they must have had more faith in the local authorities than I did—indeed, more faith than the environmental health officers have.

Mrs. Lait: In Committee, my hon. Friend was successful in increasing the fixed penalty to £100. Has he done any costings that can tell us whether the money

would cover the extra costs to an environmental health department, thus removing the argument about the Bill imposing extra costs on local authorities?

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. We have looked at the figures, but it is difficult to assess the implications. Whether local authorities would be allowed to keep the proceeds from the fines is another question. Certainly that could be a way forward, which the Minister could explore to try to help local authorities to meet the additional costs of implementing the Bill.
I have had the privilege of having discussions not only with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North but with the Minister and the Secretary of State—who is very sympathetic to and supportive of the Bill. They agreed that they would re-examine that matter, and I look forward with interest to their comments today, because, to reiterate, thousands of people across the country have suffered for far too long.
We have campaigned and achieved this excellent Bill, but it is still one step away from being a really great Bill that will solve the problems. It is a good Bill, but it needs improvement. If it is not improved, we will have raised people's hopes and expectations only to dash them, and many more people will continue to suffer the problems, agonies, anxieties and illnesses caused by lack of sleep and distress from extra noise.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can present measures to overcome the implementation problem. A good Bill that is not implemented is a waste of time, because it will not do what it needs to do and what we want it to do. There is a great deal of concern about the problem. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) has highlighted what environmental health officers think about it. Many local councillors feel the same way about it, and many people who have campaigned on noise nuisance feel that the Bill as drafted is insufficient.
I hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will examine sympathetically the issues that have been raised in Committee and again today, so that the Bill can be improved and made more effective, so that it gives some respite to people who have suffered for so long from the effects of noisy neighbours.

Mr. Jenkin: I speak against the amendment, with deference and apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who spoke eloquently in favour of it. The amendment, in fact, transforms the Bill into something completely different.
The Bill is an admirable effort to increase local authorities' powers—to give them discretion, to decentralise, to enhance their autonomy and to allow them decide for themselves what action should be appropriate in their areas.
One lesson that the House should have learnt over the past 20 or 30 years is that the endless stream of obligations that have been placed on local authorities, combined with the very necessary and ever tighter fiscal and financial constraints placed on them, have a detrimental effect on the esteem with which they are held and the effectiveness with which they are accountable to their electors. The more local authorities have become proxies for national Government and for Parliament, to do


our bidding, the less spontaneity and genuine democracy there has been at local authority level. This amendment turns a Bill that confers greater powers on local authorities into one that confers greater obligations on local authorities.
We need only consider community care, for example, in which we turned all the activities of local authorities into prescriptive obligations. There is a question whether that has left local authorities with sufficient discretion to decide how to distribute to best effect the substantial resources they have available for community care. They find that they have to follow certain procedures and categorise certain people in certain ways. This measure is falling into the same trap.
Hon. Members should take a step back and stop being a great regulatory machine, churning out the obligations that we tend to churn out. When, as in this case, we can do so, we should devolve power and discretion to local authorities so that, advised by their electors, they can decide for themselves what is appropriate, what they can afford and what are their priorities. Those matters must be decided locally.
If hon. Members think that we are more capable of deciding what local authorities' priorities should be, we are falling down a very dangerous and slippery slope. We have found it necessary to do that in a great many spheres, but this is surely not one of them, because every local authority will have its own demography, geography, distribution of housing and priorities.
Although I share the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford that hon. Members should ride valiantly to the rescue of our oppressed constituents—I have had my share of complaints from constituents complaining about noisy neighbours and dealing with their problems—

Mr. Evennett: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments, but does not he agree that this is really a national and a growing problem? A tremendous number of people are suffering across the country from noisy neighbours, and subsequently from illness. Expenditure has to be increased on the health service because people have terrible illnesses resulting from noise. The problem is not only local: it is a problem of our society.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course it is a problem of our society. It is a problem of an ever more egocentric culture—of members of the "me generation" blaring their music to the detriment of everyone else. But my hon. Friend is employing the type of arguments that the European Commission would use to suggest that it is a Europewide problem—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should have a European directive to deal with noise across Europe, because of those little villages on the Belgian and French borders, for example. Noise knows no national boundaries: no doubt that is what we will be told.
The point, of course, is that, while there may be a national, European or even world malaise about selfishness and noise, the problems we are talking about are desperately local, affecting a few houses in one street or one block of flats. To describe the problem as one that requires nationally prescriptive legislation is really rather

stretching the point. I think that we should not, in this case, put another obligation and another expense on local authorities, when it is not an obligation or expense that they would choose for themselves. As often as we can, we should draw back from such legislation.
Perhaps we should be considering spheres in which we can deregulate local authorities. This is not a regulatory measure as currently drafted, but, with the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, it will immediately become a regulatory burden on local authorities. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Sir Michael Neubert: I support amendment No. 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). I should mention that I, too, put my signature to the amendment, but that has somehow eluded those making up the Order Paper. I also have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), as I shall explain a little later.
But first I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for his commendable initiative in introducing the Bill and for his sterling efforts in promoting it. As one of its sponsors, I am very happy to be associated with him in this campaign.
My sympathy with the Bill's objectives goes back many years—to the very beginning of my political activity, 35 or 40 years ago—when I was a member of the then Noise Abatement Society, which was founded by a great man, John Connell. Its slogan was "QP", which stood for "Quiet, Please". I have always believed that that is a right to which people are entitled and that it should be preserved as far as humanly possible in our increasingly urban environment. That is why I am strongly sympathetic to the amendment. Unless some effort is made to allay people's natural concerns, the Bill's provisions will not be implemented.
I think that all hon. Members have received a briefing from the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection. This organisation is not known to me, but it has undertaken a poll of local authority officers to gauge their initial response to Government proposals for a new noise offence. The survey showed that only a minority of authorities are likely to adopt the new powers proposed in the Bill, and that even fewer are in favour of the fixed penalty provisions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said, people would be gravely disappointed if, having had their hopes raised by the Bill's passage through Parliament, at the end of the day—or perhaps during the night—its powers were not used to effect the necessary social objective.
Those of us with a local authority background—I was leader of the council and mayor of the borough of Bromley—

Mr. Piers Merchant: A fine man.

Sir Michael Neubert: There speaks a parliamentary representative of the borough of Bromley; I am delighted to have his commendation.
We understand that there are many calls on local authority resources. The opportunity for authorities to use their discretion is extremely limited, and I have some


sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). There are only limited spheres in which local councils have the opportunity to decide their own priorities, but there is anxiety that, in the sphere of noise abatement, they will on occasion take the easy way out.
Common sense dictates that dealing with the problem of excessive noise is not an enviable task for anyone, designated or not. By definition, people who cause excessive noise to the annoyance of their neighbours are likely to be anti-social and, when tackled, to be aggressive. Assaults may follow, so the amendment would impose a very unenviable task on local government.
I hope, however, that the Minister can reassure us that the proposed powers stand a good chance of being exercised. If not, the House is conducting an empty exercise. I believe that that is the concern that prompted the amendment, which I am happy to support.

Mr. Thomason: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) for introducing an important debate that goes to the nub of the Bill. I am also grateful to him for offering to give way to me when I did not want to intervene—I hope that he will continue that practice.
I should like in passing to mention an issue touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, which is referred to more specifically in one of the associated amendments. There is some difference between urban and rural authorities in respect of the problems of noise.
It is certainly true that, where a large number of people live close together, one can expect greater problems, including the generation of noise. However, with the exception of those who live in total isolation in the countryside, the problems of noise are every bit as great in rural as in urban areas. In fact, they may sometimes be greater, because the very peace and quiet of villages and small communities means that any noise is more noticeable and disturbing. The problem of noise is not confined to urban areas but pervades almost the whole country.

Mr. Jenkin: I represent a constituency that is both urban and rural. Its two local authorities cover deeply rural areas as well as intensely urban areas—one authority covers Colchester, and Tendring district includes Clacton. I find the distinction between rural and urban authorities rather spurious, because very few local authorities cover wholly rural areas. We must remember that every local authority has an urban element, and that every authority is different. It is therefore wrong for a Bill to try to treat them the same.

Mr. Thomason: My hon. Friend is right, and makes my point powerfully.

Mr. Evennett: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I have been concerned with the problems of noisy neighbours for many years. There has been a fantastic increase in metropolitan areas in the difficulties and illnesses caused by noise problems. Very few such cases have arisen in rural areas, or in the mixed areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North referred. The majority

of cases involving the breakdown of health and complaints of distress are in the Greater London area and the metropolitan urban districts.

Mr. Thomason: I cannot comment on the content of my hon. Friend's mailbag, but mine also contains complaints of the type that we have been debating. The problem is not confined to metropolitan areas, or even urban areas. I represent a semi-urban constituency not entirely dissimilar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North, and I am very aware of the harrowing experiences of a number of constituents.
The core of the debate on the amendment is whether an obligation should be placed on local authorities to implement the Bill's provisions, or whether it should be left to their discretion. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford or his surprising ally, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). It is amazing that the Labour party, which is supposed to espouse the cause of local authority autonomy, should now be saying that it wishes to remove local discretion and oblige local authorities to introduce the Bill's provisions.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Let us assume for a moment that there is some difference between urban and rural areas. A street may be divided, with one side is covered by one local authority and the other side by another. Would there not be great injustice for the residents if one authority implemented the Bill's provisions and the other did not? Residents on one side of the street would have to suffer noise because their authority was not prepared to do anything about it.

Mr. Thomason: It depends on one's views, but there is great injustice for those who live in a street, one side of which is controlled by Wandsworth and the other Lambeth. What is the point of having local authorities if they cannot make some decisions? If they do not have any decision-making powers, we shall end up with total uniformity. Although it is necessary in the national interest to impose on local authorities certain standards—and spending limitations—authorities must be able to make decisions on matters affecting their communities.
If councillors in a particular authority perceive that there is a noise problem in their area, they should be able to respond to it under the Bill. If the neighbouring council feels that there is no noise problem or that it has other more important spending priorities, it must be able to act appropriately, which will mean not introducing the Bill's provisions.
It is entirely desirable that such matters are left to a local authority's discretion, and that councillors are able to respond to the views of their electorate. After all, councils are democratically elected institutions, and must respond to the views of the people who put them in office. Their responsibilities include environmental issues, which means dealing with noise. For us to sit here and pontificate and say that councils must implement the provisions would override the discretion that local authorities should often, quite properly, have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North referred to the expense involved in introducing the provisions. I do not regard it as such a worrying issue as he does, but I acknowledge that there will be some


expense for local government. It is right that councils should decide whether they can afford to implement the provisions of the Bill. It is matter that ties in with their budget priorities and overall financial position.
The question is whether we believe that local government ought to have discretion in these matters, and whether local councillors should be able to respond to the wishes of their electorate on noise nuisance. The issue of local democracy and local discretion makes this debate important, and I hope that it will be considered carefully by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The Government should not be seduced by the persuasive arguments of those who support the amendment into acknowledging its validity. Local discretion should take priority, and the Bill as drafted is correct in this respect.

Mr. Merchant: The riposte to the argument ably outlined by hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) comes from those people who write to their Members of Parliament to complain that they are unable to get their local authority to take the action that they could take under the present law. That is the problem. This House must protect the rights of individuals, but we must also protect the rights of local authorities—including their autonomy—that they understandably wish to preserve. I am no opponent of that, but the arguments must be balanced, and one sometimes must take precedence.
Only yesterday, I received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. McCrory of Copers Cope road, Beckenham, in which she outlined the terrible problems she has had with noise from her neighbours. This has been going on for some months, and I was aware of the problem, which has not yet been resolved. She wrote that she was getting no response at all from the police and no response "from E. Heath." This puzzled me somewhat, until I realised that this was an error in her writing. She was not referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) but to E. Health, the local authority's department of environmental health, which was responsible for upholding the law.
It is a nightmare that members of the public feel that their local authority is not protecting them and is not using the powers to enable them to live in peace. Those people are having their lives upturned by irresponsible and antisocial neighbours.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be misleading of us to suggest to the public that this Bill might cut noise at a stroke?

Mr. Merchant: There is wisdom in what my hon. Friend says—he is obviously following a good master. No supporter of the Bill believes that, as the Bill's purpose is to reduce the problems that the public are facing in some areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred to local authorities. In theory, I should like local authorities to have the freedom to decide on the issues dealt with in the Bill. It would be good to give them powers and then let them have the freedom to choose whether to exercise them. That, after all, would

further empower local authorities by devolving powers to them. It would enable the legislation to be flexible, and would ensure that judgments were made at a local level where that was most applicable.
I do not automatically support the amendment, but I am in favour of local authorities retaining the ultimate decision-making power. We must look at the link between the views of individuals and those of local authorities, which, in practical terms, is often very tenuous. Voters do not necessarily express their feelings on individual local issues when it comes to local authority elections, as the events of the past few days have shown. In the vast majority of cases, voters do not vote in support of one particular issue.
A more effective way of achieving local consensus would be via a mechanism of which I am in favour, but which I accept is not fashionable—a local referendum. I would like many of the decisions that are particularly relevant to local people—for example, Sunday trading—to be settled at a local level by a referendum, which would accurately match the policy for an area with the views of local people. I merely float that as an idea, although I accept that there is at present insufficient support for it.
One recalcitrant authority failing to use the powers that the Bill will give it would completely neuter the decision of this House. What would we say to constituents who said, "We have a terrible problem with noise. We looked to you, as our elected representative acting through the House of Commons, to bring in a law to protect us. You have done that, yet it has had no impact, because our local authority has decided not to implement it"?
I hope that my local authority will use the powers—I have no reason to believe that it will not—but I can give no guarantee to the House or to my constituents that the Bromley authority will use the powers that the Bill will give it. I give as an example the powers that local authorities have to defend leaseholders by giving them support in actions taken through the courts against unreasonable freeholders. The local authority can exercise that power, but my authority decided not to, despite the fact that Bromley has one of the largest concentrations of leaseholders in one constituency—and probably in any one borough—in the country. That is an example of the powers that Parliament has given a local authority not being used.
For all those reasons, and because of the balance between the two sets of arguments, the amendment greatly appeals to me. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) has given this House an opportunity to have what will be the most important debate on Report.
I should be happy with a compromise. If the entire wording of the amendment is not acceptable, the Government could make it compulsory for some local authorities to exercise the powers. I believe that a distinction can be made between highly urban authorities and rural areas; I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North that no distinction could be drawn between them. I believe that such a distinction can be clearly drawn.

Sir Michael Neubert: May I express my support for my hon. Friend's comments? He will know the intense nuisance that can be caused by noise in an urban environment. He, of course, comes from the leafy avenues


of Beckenham, but in the area of London where I live, noise is intrusive and does not always come from neighbours. Radio 3 is blotted out at the weekends by, presumably pirate, radio stations blaring out popular rock music. One cannot even escape noise within one's home when listening to the radio.

Mr. Merchant: I agree with my hon. Friend. He prompts me to back up what he said and my previous argument with the fact that my constituency is not all leafy avenues, much though I appreciate the leafy parts of it as well. My constituency is varied. It is interesting that by far the majority of complaints I receive on noise issues come from the part of the constituency in which housing is closer together and there is not the space for leafy avenues.
Leafy avenues themselves dissipate noise. The same volume of noise emanating from one house or flat in areas where the housing is close together will cause a great deal more disturbance than in one of the leafier, more spacious parts of the constituency. It is simply a question of the proximity of the housing; it is nothing to do with the people. That is a strong illustration of the difference between urban and rural areas.
If the amendment cannot be accepted and we cannot create a divide between urban and rural areas, I hope that some mechanism can be found to enable voters in an area to express their feelings and take some action if the problem is particularly acute. I hope that some means can be found by which they could require a local authority to institute the requirements of the Bill, or, at the very least, a mechanism to review the working of the Act, to enable the House or the Government to step in and take action if, in the fulness of time, it seems that local authorities are not taking up the power that the Bill will give them.
I do not see the point of the House going to great lengths to perfect a Bill if few local authorities use it. That would be futile. From my own, perhaps slightly selfish, point of view—that is why I was elected to the House—the Bill will be completely useless if my local authority does not act to implement the Bill, even if every other local authority does, because my constituents will not be protected.
I mentioned the letter that I received from Miss McCrory. I should like to quote two other examples among many complaints that I have received in the past few years.
Mr. Geoffrey Munn, who lives in the Upper Norwood part of my constituency—the Crystal Palace area—was driven to distraction by continuous noise from a neighbour. He encountered the same problem as Miss McCrory. The local authority, which is vigilant and tries to tackle noise problems, did not have sufficient energy to pursue the problem. The noisy neighbour was effectively able to outwit the local authority.
I believe that the law as it existed could have been enforced more effectively, but because the law is uncertain and ultimately requires rather unpredictable and expensive legal processes, local authorities are unwilling to press matters to a conclusion. If a noisy neighbour does not take notice of warnings and pressure, local authority environmental health departments will normally lay off. The police similarly take a step back these days and detach themselves from neighbourhood noise problems.

Yet, as we all know, noise may be only the beginning of other problems, which can result in much more serious forms of criminal activity.
Where cases of noise are bad, they can be very bad indeed. I do not believe that local authorities would be inundated by complaints from the public. If we make the power compulsory, we will not be burdening local authorities with a massive new responsibility. The rest of my hon. Friend's excellent Bill will act mostly as a deterrent. It will stop noise, and therefore will not require great enforcement resources. By its very existence, the Bill will reduce the problems.
Bad problems do exist. We have a duty to our constituents to do our best to protect them. To leave the Bill uncertain in its impact or leave a question mark over its final implementation is not sufficient. That is what we shall do if we do not amend it. We owe our constituents a greater responsibility than that.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage in the debate on these most interesting and important amendments moved so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), with powerful support from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), thoughtful opposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), a dramatic intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and a compromise approach by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). The compromise approach warms my heart, because I believe that that is the way in which we need to go in response to the amendments.
10.45 am
It would be absurd for my busy colleagues on both sides of the House to have given the time that we have devoted over the years to this important subject and this particular Bill if the Bill was not implemented where it was essential and needful that it be implemented. We need a device in the Bill whereby the Secretary of State can review the situation and see what can be done if local authorities do not implement the Bill where there is a clear and proven need to do so. That is the approach that is needed, instead of writing into the Bill the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, for the sound reasons given by some of my hon. Friends.
Areas are different. I lived in the country for many years. In some parts of the country, one house is distant from another and noise problems are very different from those in some parts of my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, where people are very close to each other, walls are thin and inconsiderate noise impacts desperately heavily on a neighbour. So it is unthinkable that local authorities such as mine, my hon. Friends' and others across London and in other urban areas will not implement the Act, as we hope and believe it will become. However, to force all local authorities to implement the Bill where it was not needed would be mistaken. That would simply put people through a bureaucratic process.
Therefore, I look forward to an amendment in the House of Lords, which my hon. Friend the Minister will develop in his speech, which will be a compromise. It will


be written into the Act that there will be a review after two years of how the Act is being implemented and that there will be a trigger to ensure that it is implemented if it is not implemented where it should be. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford can accept that and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw his amendments. I give him that assurance.
In some urban areas, one in 10 homes suffer severe noise. That is desperate. It is as serious as that. We cannot just sit back. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford certainly is not. I pay tribute to his determination to ensure that the measures that we are all so keen on are implemented, effective and properly policed and enforced. I believe that they would be effectively enforced under the compromise that I have suggested, which was also the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, whom I thank for his interesting speech.
My amendment No. 5 states:
Where a local authority receive a complaint under subsection (2) and the offending dwelling is within the area of another local authority, the first authority may act under this group of sections as if the offending dwelling were within their area, and accordingly may so act whether or not this group of sections applies to the area of the other local authority".
The amendment meets the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove referred with such clear force. It deals with cases where the complainant's and offender's dwellings are in different local authority areas. Where the complainant's local authority has adopted the night noise offence, it may take action against the offender regardless of whether the offender's local authority has adopted the provisions. It is a crucial amendment.
Many streets are bisected by local authority boundaries. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, East said, one side of a street can be in a different authority from the other; even one property may be in a different local authority from its neighbour. I am sure that we all agree that local authorities that adopt the night noise offence should be capable of taking action when their residents complain. I say in parenthesis that that would not apply to other matters such as council tax. The good people of Wandsworth may be assured that they will not be damaged by the dreadful Labour local authority of Lambeth or face any danger of paying a council tax four times their present one. The figure may be even higher, for all that I know.
My amendment seeks to ensure that, where the noise maker's dwelling is in a different local authority from that of the complainant, the complainant's local authority can take action regardless of whether the noise maker's authority has adopted the night noise offence. Hon. Members may like to know that, where such cases are brought and result in prosecution, the magistrates court involved will be the one that has jurisdiction in the area in which the offender's dwelling is situated.

Mrs. Lait: It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for two reasons. First, I add my congratulations on his skill in moving a Bill that is very necessary to many of my constituents. Secondly, he mentioned his amendment, on which I wish to make a few remarks.
First, in respect of the Bill's principles, I support its original text and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). Many local authorities will wish to implement the legislation. I am sure that my local council in Hastings will. If it does not, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, will be out demonstrating along with hundreds of people who have made complaints about noise—which, I have to say, usually come from council house tenants. I doubt whether Rother, which is the other local council that my constituency covers, would wish to implement the legislation.
I strongly believe that it should be up to the local authority to make the decision and to respond to the needs of its voters. We have been attacked for years for taking powers away from local authorities and being prescriptive about their roles and duties. It is about time that we started to give back to local authorities many of the local duties that their residents consider to be their responsibilities.
To digress briefly, I refer to the prescriptive powers that we gave environmental health officers on food and the necessary further action that we have taken to deregulate, to allow them to govern with a much lighter hand. The Bill embodies the practice of allowing environmental health officers to use their discretion, which I support. I hope that any compromise that my hon. Friend the Member Ealing, North and my hon. Friend the Minister reach will ensure that local authorities have the primary responsibility for deciding whether to implement the Bill.
I also ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether any costings have been done on the value to local authorities of the £100 fixed penalty, to find whether it would cover costs, which would encourage many local authorities to implement the legislation. While that may not be a financial incentive, it would not cost them any money. That would help to ensure that the legislation was implemented where it was most needed.
I support amendment No. 5 because, as I said earlier, my constituency covers two local authorities and I can envisage a situation where noise is a nuisance and the local authority involved has decided to do nothing about it. We must be able to take powers to ensure that the people who live in that unfortunate situation, whether between Wandsworth and Lambeth or between Hastings and Rother, can take action to end the disturbance. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for including that provision.
On pressure to implement the Bill, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) deletes the requirement for local authorities to advertise in a newspaper the fact that they will be implementing the legislation. I hope that in another place we can pluralise that, so that as many people as possible have access to that information.

Mr. Thomason: I tabled amendments to that effect. Does my hon. Friend accept that many district council areas are served by more than one local newspaper and that the reference to one newspaper circulating in the area is misleading? It may be appropriate in another place to consider giving local authorities an obligation to advertise in the local newspapers that reach the majority of their residents.

Mrs. Lait: I commend my hon. Friend for bringing out that point. I rather pirated his amendment for my


comments. It is important that as many people as possible are apprised of the fact that local authorities have such powers on noise. I would go further, because of the growing number of licences for community radio. That would be a most appropriate channel for local authorities to use, to advertise their powers on noise. It would be a slur on community radio to suggest that it is so loud that it would be appropriate for action to be taken.

Mr. Evennett: Then people would have to turn the volume up.

Mrs. Lait: The volume would need to be turned down.
In another place, it may be possible to consider bringing that provision into line with the modern, diverse media service in our constituencies. I hope that the Minister can take up some of my points about making implementation easier, while ensuring that we do not impose an unwanted and costly burden of regulation on local authorities.

Mr. Clappison: This has been a good debate on an important amendment. I am alive to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, which in some cases reflected at least two different strands of thinking—giving local authorities the discretion to decide what is important for their residents and giving those who have suffered from noise the fullest possible protection. I am alive to the fact that there are those two different approaches and hope that I shall be able to suggest a balanced way of meeting both concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) was right to refer to the need for some balance. He came down strongly in favour of giving the fullest possible protection. To some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has paved the way for what I want to say. I think that I shall be able to suggest an approach that meets both those lines of thinking.
11 am
I am grateful for the kind and generous comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), but the credit for choosing this subject for a private Member's Bill has to go to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, who has performed his role as promoter with some distinction and who took the Bill through Committee with some skill.
I was about to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has been one of the loudest proponents of the Bill, but perhaps I should not do so. It would be fair to say that he has been one of the most active and interested sponsors of the Bill. He has certainly taken to heart the problem of noise, and I know that the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, run by Mrs. Val Gibson, is located in his constituency. He has spoken of the problems that noise has caused there. Truly, my hon. Friend has campaigned fully and energetically on behalf of his constituents, that campaign and all those who have suffered from the problem and contacted him.
The starting point of my response must be the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), who also speaks from a position of great experience in this matter and with the benefit of his previous association with the Noise Abatement Society.

He said that he wanted the powers to be exercised where help was needed. That is a helpful approach. The Government certainly share that view.
Indeed, I am sure that we are all concerned that the remedies of the Bill should be available where they are needed and can be effectively operated. We considered that in some detail in Committee and I listened to the concerns expressed by hon. Friends who are present today, including the my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and for Erith and Crayford, among others. They spoke with some considerable passion on the subject.
In approaching those concerns, I feel that it would be helpful if I dealt first with the two amendments, which are, in large measure, exclusive. Amendment No. 1 would apply the offence to all local authorities, while amendment No. 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the "preponderantly urban" authorities where the new offence would operate, leaving those not prescribed to adopt it if they so wished.
I have argued that local authorities are in the best position to judge whether they need the additional power to deal with night noise problems from domestic premises. I have been conscious of the arguments in support of that approach. I have thought carefully about the matter, the point of view that the fullest possible protection should be given and the concern about whether local authorities will adopt the measure.
Amendment No. 1 would be too general in its application. Local authorities must give some thought to whether the measure is required in their area. There may be local authorities which, having considered the matter thoughtfully and carefully, as all hon. Members would wish them to do—they have mentioned the clarion calls that they will give authorities in their areas—will adopt the measure. Others may come to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that there is little demand for a night-time noise complaints service in their area. A blanket application of the measure would be wrong, as it would be wrong to impose it on authorities that had concluded that it was not required in their area.
I listened to what hon. Members said about the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. My previous comments are fortified by the view expressed when that organisation wrote to me, saying that it supported the provision of the new offence, but only if it were made discretionary, as it believed that
it must be up to individual local authorities to tailor their noise service in accordance with the needs of the community.
Having considered that view and being mindful of the position of local authorities that may conclude that they do not require the noise complaints service and of the public expenditure implications—I am also mindful of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) about the general applications, which was certainly germane—I cannot support the approach of amendment No. 1. I am, however, sympathetic to the concerns expressed, particularly those so strongly put forward by hon. Friends who represent urban and metropolitan areas. I agree with those who say that there may well be a distinction with regard to the offence and that the new measure will be needed in such areas as they are the most likely to suffer from that type of problem.
My hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford, for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Ealing, North will be at the head of the queue trying to force local authorities to take into account the needs of their local


residents and to adopt the service. Sadly, as we all know and as we heard in Committee, local authorities of certain complexions have not always listened to the views put forward by local residents. I recognise that, in tabling amendment No. 2, hon. Members want to find a way of focusing on the authorities that are likely to have most need of the new offence. I am sympathetic and I support the idea of maintaining the adoptive approach, but with power to bring in the offence in some areas.
We are talking of a novel approach to the night noise problem. Never before have we sought to fix an objective standard in law as the basis for a noise nuisance offence. It is right that we should see how the new approach works in practice before deciding to impose it on any authorities. I have some doubts, therefore, as to whether amendment No. 2 is exactly right. It will be a couple of years before we know just how well the new offence works in practice and how useful an additional weapon it is in the hands of local authorities, and before the Government should consider overriding local judgment.
Furthermore, I am unsure whether the drafting of the amendment is sufficiently clear. There may be problems with the interpretation of "preponderantly urban". My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford is doing himself an injustice, as he has made a noble attempt at drafting, but there may be some problems. For example, there is the question whether the whole of the local authority area has to be predominantly urban, or just a part. I am alive to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend—concerns shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—and in particular those about urban and metropolitan areas. In the light of the debate today and in Committee, I can suggest an alternative approach, which I hope will deal with the problems that they mentioned.
As I have said, I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friends' objective in proposing amendment No. 2. I give them an undertaking that the Government will review the workings and take-up of the new noise offence after it has been operating for two years. At that stage, we shall be able to see the effect that the introduction of the new offence has had and whether its coverage should be extended. If the weight of opinion is that the new offence should be applied more widely, I can see a case for requiring local authorities to take up the new powers.
I should prefer to wait and see what the review brings, but I recognise the strength of hon. Members' views today. I am conscious that we cannot be sure that in two years' time a suitable legislative vehicle will be available for the sort of amendment that may be necessary—that is always a problem, and I know that my hon. Friends will be thinking of that. I confirm that we would, therefore, accept an amendment in another place to add to the Bill a reserve power, to allow the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to take up the new offence.

Mr. Thomason: Would that occur by regulation requiring an affirmative resolution in the House, or would it involve another procedure?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will have to wait and see what the regulations bring. We want the Secretary of State to have the reserve power to direct local authorities, as I have said. I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend made as to the form that that regulation should take.
Amendment No. 2 is not satisfactory and we cannot accept it as it stands. I am concerned that, if it is carried, it will cause more difficulties than it solves. Nevertheless, we are supportive of the aim of amendment No. 2, so I have suggested a workable alternative that will allow the objective of hon. Members to be achieved simply and effectively. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford will reflect and consider withdrawing his amendment.
Amendment No. 5 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. I accept the amendment, as it is helpful. Hon. Members may be interested to know that section 81(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes a similar provision with regard to cases of statutory nuisance. It is right that a local authority that adopts the new offence should be able to take action against noise coming from dwellings over its border. That is a sensible amendment and I have no hesitation in accepting it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye asked for details about the costings of the proceeds of fines and fixed penalties. The fixed penalty will be a substitute for a fine in court, which will affect the destination of the fixed penalty. I shall write to her and give her the details of the costings. I am sure that she understands that her question requires some research and analysis.

Mr. Thomason: Is it not true that the fixed penalty that is collected, or any other fine under the provisions, will go to the Treasury in the normal way? However, because the Treasury coffers will be slightly replenished from those sources, would it not be appropriate for my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to argue with the Treasury that the revenue support grant should be adjusted slightly, to take into account the extra costs and responsibilities that the local authorities might face?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will know that many interesting discussions take place between my Department, other Departments and the Treasury. I am sure that in any such discussions we shall have the opportunity to bring my hon. Friend's comments to the Treasury's attention. I cannot anticipate the form that the regulations will take—I cannot anticipate decisions that may be made later.

Mr. Evennett: I thank the Minister for his comments on the amendments. This has been an excellent debate, and hon. Members have placed varying degrees of emphasis on the issue, even though we all want to achieve the same thing. Many hon. Members will watch closely, to see whether councils implement the legislation when it is on the statute book, I hope in July. I have had discussions with the Minister, the Secretary of State and the promoter of the Bill, and I welcome the Bill. I look forward to seeing an amendment tabled in another place that deals with the concerns of my amendment No. 2.
I thank the Minister for the serious way in which he approached the problem, particularly for urban areas. In the light of what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS OF NOISE FROM A DWELLING AT NIGHT

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
'( )Where a local authority receive a complaint under subsection (2) and the offending dwelling is within the area of another local authority, the first local authority may act under this group of sections as if the offending dwelling were within their area, and accordingly may so act whether or not this group of sections applies to the area of the other local authority'.—[Mr. Harry Greenway.]

Clause 8

FIXED PENALTY NOTICES

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 33, leave out 'group of sections' and insert 'Act'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 11, page 6, line 45, leave out subsection (1).

No. 8, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'Regulations, or'.

No. 9, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'this Act' and insert `section 9'.

No. 10, in page 7, line 20, leave out 'regulations or'.

No. 11, in clause 14, page 8, line 11, leave out `regulations or'.

No. 12, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'regulations or'.

No. 13, in page 8, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (h)(iv) and (v) and insert—
`( ) in the Schedule, paragraph 1(b)(ii) and the word "and" immediately before it,
( ) in the Schedule, in paragraph 1(c), the words "or section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as so extended)"'.

No. 14, in schedule, page 9, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (a)

No. 15, in page 9, line 13, leave out `so extended' and insert
`extended by section 10(7) of this Act'.

No. 16, in page 9, line 17, at end insert—
`conferred by section 10(2) of this Act or section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as so extended),
( ) "related equipment", in relation to any conviction of or proceedings for a noise offence, means seized equipment used or alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence,
( ) "responsible local authority", in relation to seized equipment, means the local authority by or on whose behalf the equipment was seized'.

No. 17, in page 9, line 21, leave out from 'if' to 'until' in line 22 and insert
`it is related equipment in proceedings for a noise offence instituted within that period against any person'.

No. 18, in page 9, line 29, leave out 'that noise' and insert
`the noise in respect of which the fixed penalty notice was given'.

No. 19, in page 9, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).

No. 20, in page 9, line 42, leave out from 'person' to end of line 46 and insert
`is convicted of a noise offence'.

No. 21, in page 9, line 47, leave out 'that' and insert `any related'.

No. 22, in page 10, line 14, leave out from 'than' to `make' in line 15 and insert
`the person in whose case the forfeiture order was made'.

No. 23, in page 10, line 25, at end insert—
`( ) Where the responsible local authority is of the opinion that the person in whose case the forfeiture order was made is not the owner of the equipment, it must take reasonable steps to bring to the attention of persons who may be entitled to do so their right to make an application under sub-paragraph (1)'.

No. 24, in page 10, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert—
'(6) If on the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which a forfeiture order was made in respect of the equipment no order has been made under sub-paragraph (1), the responsible local authority may dispose of the equipment.

Return etc of seized equipment

5. If in proceedings for a noise offence no order for forfeiture of related equipment is made, the court (whether or not a person is convicted of the offence) may give such directions as to the return, retention, or disposal of the equipment by the responsible local authority as it thinks fit.

6.—(1) Where in the case of any seized equipment no proceedings in which it is related equipment are begun within the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a)—

(a) the responsible local authority must return the equipment to any person who—

(i) appears to them to be the owner of the equipment, and
(ii) makes a claim for the return of the equipment within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and

(b) if no such person makes such a claim within that period, the responsible local authority may dispose of the equipment.

(2) The period referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a)(ii) is the period of six months beginning with the expiry of the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a).

(3) The responsible local authority must take reasonable steps to bring to the attention of persons who may be entitled to do so their right to make such a claim.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), the responsible local authority is not required to return any seized equipment under sub-paragraph (1)(a) until the person making the claim has paid any such reasonable charges for the seizure, removal and retention of the equipment as the authority may demand.

(5) If—

(a) equipment is sold in pursuance of—

(i) paragraph 4(6),
(ii) directions under paragraph 5, or
(iii) this paragraph, and

(b) before the expiration of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the equipment is sold any person satisfies the responsible local authority that at the time of its sale he was the owner of the equipment,
the authority is to pay him any sum by which any proceeds of sale exceed any such reasonable charges for the seizure, removal or retention of the equipment as the authority may demand.

(6) The responsible local authority cannot demand charges from any person under sub-paragraph (4) or (5) who they are satisfied did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the equipment was likely to be used in the emission of noise exceeding the level determined under section 5'.

Mr. Greenway: As I explained in Committee on 3 April, I am aware of the need to look at the schedule


again, because of the need to ensure that third party rights are taken into account. I understand that the Finance and Leasing Association—which represents companies that provide consumer finance in the form of hire, hire purchase and personal loans—is happy with the revised schedule. I believe it important that I put that on the record.
My amendments require local authorities to take reasonable steps to find the owner of seized equipment where a forfeiture order has been made against someone other than that person. The local authority may dispose of equipment when six months have elapsed after a forfeiture order has been made. The amendments also provide for the return of equipment where proceedings are not undertaken and for the right for local authorities, in certain circumstances, to return equipment only on payment of charges.
The amendments clarify a number of issues relating to the retention, forfeiture and return of seized noise-making equipment, and, in cases where the equipment is sold, the proceeds of sale. I am aware that concerns have been expressed about cases where the owner of the equipment is not aware of its use in the creation of excessive noise. The amendments will help to ensure that the owner is made aware of the fact that his equipment has been seized, and they give him the opportunity to reclaim it.
Amendment No. 23 requires the local authority—where a forfeiture order has been made on someone other than the owner of the equipment—to take reasonable steps to trace the owner, to notify him of his rights to reclaim the equipment. Amendment No. 24 includes a provision to enable the local authority to dispose of the seized equipment six months after a forfeiture order has been made if no claim has been made on it. The amendment ensures that, for up to one year after sale, claims can be made by the owner of the equipment against the proceeds of sale.
The amendment also provides, at subparagraph (5) of the revised schedule, for where there are proceedings and no forfeiture order is made. In those circumstances, the court will be able to give directions as to the return, retention or disposal of the equipment. In cases where equipment has been seized but no proceedings for a noise offence are taken within 28 days, sub-paragraph (6) of the revised schedule will provide that the local authority must return the equipment to any person whom it is satisfied is the owner of the equipment and who makes a claim within six months of the expiry of that period. The local authority will be required to take reasonable steps to find the owner of the equipment, but if no claim is made, it will be able to dispose of the equipment.
Under paragraph 6(4) and (6) of the revised schedule, a local authority, which must return seized equipment under the terms of that schedule, can retain that equipment until the reasonable charges for its seizure, removal and retention are paid. However, a local authority may not charge if the owner did not know or had no reason to suspect that the equipment was likely to be used in the noise offence.
Paragraphs 6(5) and (6) enable the owner of the seized equipment that is being sold by the local authority to claim proceeds of the sale, which must be made within one year of the sale. If a local authority is satisfied that

the person is the owner, it will pay him any sum by which the proceeds of the sale exceed the costs incurred by the local authority. If the local authority is satisfied that the owner did not know that the equipment was likely to be used in the commission of a noise offence, it cannot demand charges.
The other amendments in the group, which make minor changes to the schedule, will assist local authorities in their procedures for seizure of equipment. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will recognise that the amendments will help to establish an effective procedure for the seizure and return of equipment.
It is absolutely essential that the procedure we introduce is one that local authorities can implement easily and also provides protection for the owners of equipment used in the commission of an offence without their knowledge.

Mr. Thomason: Can my hon. Friend explain the purpose of amendment No. 7, which deletes clause 11(1), which refers to regulations and prescriptions? It is my understanding that a number of powers are still conferred under the Bill, even as it is now amended, on the Secretary of State. Can my hon. Friend explain the wisdom of deleting clause 11(1)?

Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 7 relates to amendment No. 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Once that amendment had been withdrawn, it was necessary for me to move amendments Nos. 7 to 12 to ensure that proper protection was offered.

Mr. Clappison: I support these sensible amendments, which protect the rights of third parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) asked an interesting question. He has obviously paid great attention to the Bill and has great interest in procedural matters. I am sure that he would not want the amendments to be defeated. He should bear in mind the important point that they provide additional protection for the rights of third parties—innocent owners of equipment, who, in certain circumstances, may have had their equipment used to cause the type of noise offence specified in the Bill. In those circumstances, the owner would lose his property. The combined effect of the amendments safeguards their rights. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove will rush to his feet to support them.

Mr. Thomason: I was merely expressing concern about the technicality of deleting clause 11(1). I was not in any way attacking the rest of the amendments, which are right and appropriate. I was concerned that we might delete something that was still needed, but I am happy to accept the assurances given.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 6, line 45, leave out subsection (1).

No. 8, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'Regulations, or'.

No. 9, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'this Act' and insert `section 9'.

No. 10, in page 7, line 20, leave out 'regulations or'.— [Mr. Harry Greenway.]

Clause 14

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'regulations or'.

No. 12, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'regulations or'.

No. 13, in page 8, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (h)(iv) and (v) and insert—
`( ) in the Schedule, paragraph 1(b)(ii) and the word "and" immediately before it,
( ) in the Schedule, in paragraph 1(c), the words "or section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as so extended)"'.—[Mr. Harry Greenway.]

Schedule

POWERS IN RELATION TO SEIZED EQUIPMENT

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 9, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (a).

No. 15, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'so extended' and insert—
'extended by section 10(7) of this Act'.

No. 16, in page 9, line 17, at end insert—
'conferred by section 10(2) of this Act or section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as so extended),
( ) "related equipment", in relation to any conviction of or proceedings for a noise offence, means seized equipment used or alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence,
( ) "responsible local authority", in relation to seized equipment, means the local authority by or on whose behalf the equipment was seized'.

No. 17, in page 9, line 21, leave out from 'if' to 'until' in line 22 and insert
'it is related equipment in proceedings for a noise offence instituted within that period against any person'.

No. 18, in page 9, line 29, leave out 'that noise' and insert
'the noise in respect of which the fixed penalty notice was given'.

No. 19, in page 9, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).

No. 20, in page 9, line 42, leave out from 'person' to end of line 46 and insert
'is convicted of a noise offence'.

No. 21, in page 9, line 47, leave out 'that' and insert `any related'.

No. 22, in page 10, line 14, leave out from 'than' to `make' in line 15 and insert
'the person in whose case the forfeiture order was made'.

No. 23, in page 10, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) Where the responsible local authority is of the opinion that the person in whose case the forfeiture order was made is not the owner of the equipment, it must take reasonable steps to bring to the attention of persons who may be entitled to do so their right to make an application under sub-paragraph (1)'.

No. 24, in page 10, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert—
'(6) If on the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which a forfeiture order was made in respect of the equipment no order has been made under sub-paragraph (1), the responsible local authority may dispose of the equipment.

Return etc of seized equipment

5. If in proceedings for a noise offence no order for forfeiture of related equipment is made, the court (whether or not a person is convicted of the offence) may give such directions as to the return, retention, or disposal of the equipment by the responsible local authority as it thinks fit.

6.—(1) Where in the case of any seized equipment no proceedings in which it is related equipment are begun within the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a)—

(a) the responsible local authority must return the equipment to any person who—

(i) appears to them to be the owner of the equipment, and
(ii) makes a claim for the return of the equipment within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and

(b) if no such person makes such a claim within that period, the responsible local authority may dispose of the equipment.

(2) The period referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a)(ii) is the period of six months beginning with the expiry of the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a).

(3) The responsible local authority must take reasonable steps to bring to the attention of persons who may be entitled to do so their right to make such a claim.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), the responsible local authority is not required to return any seized equipment under sub-paragraph (1)(a) until the person making the claim has paid any such reasonable charges for the seizure, removal and retention of the equipment as the authority may demand.

(5) If—

(a) equipment is sold in pursuance of—

(i) paragraph 4(6),
(ii) directions under paragraph 5, or
(iii) this paragraph, and

(b) before the expiration of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the equipment is sold any person satisfies the responsible local authority that at the time of its sale he was the owner of the equipment,

the authority is to pay him any sum by which any proceeds of sale exceed any such reasonable charges for the seizure, removal or retention of the equipment as the authority may demand.

(6) The responsible local authority cannot demand charges from any person under sub-paragraph (4) or (5) who they are satisfied did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the equipment was likely to be used in the emission of noise exceeding the level determined under section 5'.—[Mr. Harry Greenway.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to thank most warmly colleagues on both sides of the House who have taken such a supportive interest in the Bill. I should like to thank the sponsors of the Bill, those who served on its Standing Committee and the Minister for his untiring support and the thought and care he put into the Bill. I should also like to thank the officials from the Department of the Environment and Baroness Gardner, who will take the Bill through another place.
I should like to thank in particular The Mail on Sunday for its valuable and important campaign on noise. It highlighted the sheer hell that noise has caused to so many people. It conducted a dogmatic and determined campaign and it was right to insist that something should be done. The Evening Standard, with which I campaigned in


London, brought equal force to the campaign. Those newspapers have contributed greatly to a much-needed improvement, and I pay a warm tribute to them.
I should also like to thank my researchers, Will McLaren and Peter Davies, for their splendid and special efforts.
The Bill creates a new offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to deal with excessive noise at night. It introduces for the first time an objective level against which noise can be assessed. The Bill seeks to provide an additional weapon in the armoury of environmental health officers in the fight against noise nuisance.
So often at my constituency surgeries, I am told of the dreadful and frightening conditions in which people find themselves too afraid to ask their neighbours to turn down the noise that prevents them from getting to sleep at night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the support of hon. Members, who have obviously heard of such experiences. We are all entitled to proper sleep at night—how can anyone function without it?
The Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard have highlighted stories of elderly ladies having to sit outside in the cold and rain, or to hide in cupboards, to escape the noise of a ghetto blaster being played upstairs or next door. It is alarming that they have had to resort to such extremes because there was no immediate and obvious source of help. That is utterly disgraceful.
At present, local authorities deal with complaints about excessive noise from premises, vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street by using the statutory controls in part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. In many cases, those controls are flexible enough to allow local authorities to deal successfully and effectively with widely differing problems of environmental noise—I just wish that some of them would exercise those powers as insistently as they should in all cases.
A growing body of opinion says that domestic noise, which causes such distress and anxiety, calls for swift action. It appeared that the current controls were not adequate. The process can seem excessively long-winded and leave the local authority and the complainant dissatisfied because nothing is really achieved. In a survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in December 1994, just nine authorities out of 328 surveyed—equivalent to 3 per cent.—operated an immediate response service to complaints about noise. The majority aimed instead to act within a week. There was therefore no proof that an offence had been committed, and it was invariably difficult for a victim of noise nuisance to have any action taken on his or her behalf.
My Bill addresses those issues. Its will make it easier for local authorities to resolve complaints made during night hours quickly and effectively. The Bill provides that a local authority must take reasonable steps to investigate a complaint of excessive noise being emitted from domestic premises during the night hours 11 pm to 7 am. The serving of a warning and, should that be ignored, of a subsequent penalty notice are simple procedures which, in case of failure, are backed by powers of confiscation and court action.
The Bill says:
If a warning notice has been served in respect of noise emitted from a dwelling, any person who is responsible for noise which—

(a) is emitted from the dwelling & specified in the notice, and
(b) exceeds the permitted level, as measured from within the complainant's dwelling,
is guilty of on offence.
The "permitted level" has been set at 35 dB—a figure reached after much research and advice from various quarters.
I believe that the £100 on-the-spot fine will be effective. My first proposal was a £40 fine, but I am sure that we were right to decide, on reflection, that that was insufficient and that the amount should be £100. I am certain that we have strong, widespread support for that figure. It will act as a powerful deterrent to those who are likely to commit noise offences. Once such fines are charged, word will get around quickly and there should be rapid improvement.
When cases go to court, the Bill's approach—of using an objective standard—should make it easier to prove the offence. As I said earlier, we must ensure that equipment used to measure the standard in question is properly calibrated; that is fundamental to civil liberty and fairness. The objective standard that we are setting in the Bill is crucial and new, and will have a powerful effect.
The Bill's simplicity is important. It gives security and greater peace of mind to those who wish to make a complaint and reassures local authorities that might be uncertain of their legal position in regard to prosecuting for noise offences.
Although the Department of the Environment and the Home Office have previously suggested that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 might be used for temporarily removing noise-making equipment, the neighbour noise working party, in its 1995 review, stated that many local authorities are
uncertain about the legality of using this wide general power for the purpose. There is considerable agreement amongst local authorities, which was shared by the working party, that a specific power to take this kind of action … would be useful both as a quick remedy and a deterrent to noise makers.
The Bill therefore gives local authorities the power to seize noise-making equipment used in the emission of noise leading to an offence.
Self-evidently, that is a very effective way of stopping the noise, and I have no doubt that those provisions will be welcomed by local authorities and noise sufferers alike. My amendments to the Bill have provided for a yet better schedule, which details the conditions on, and consequences concerning, an offender's forfeiting his or her noise-making equipment.
The Bill becomes more relevant with each day that passes. On Second Reading, I outlined—with the support and sometimes amusement of colleagues—how the development of dance music, characterised by the heavy bass drum beat, had branched into many forms. Much as I shall continue my efforts to persuade our national pop radio stations to playlist music by the Beatles, I fear that they are little use in the face of the increasing popularity of "jungle", "hard-core" and—I believe—"handbag", which currently prevail. That can be the most intrusive type of music—

Mr. Evennett: Give us a demonstration.

Mr. Greenway: If I did, I might be convicted of noise nuisance.
That can be the most intrusive type of music, and I warn my colleagues that it is no passing trend. I have warned the nation of that.
It is important to recognise the increasing availability, and falling prices, of powerful noise machines. A few tens of pounds can buy an instrument capable of being used at volumes way beyond a comfortable listening level. Previous legislation has tackled the disturbance caused by warehouse parties. It is vital that, in a similar way, we protect individuals from those who wish to throw a party with their powerful hi-fi equipment as the principal guest and centre of attention.
I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. colleagues who have participated in the important, constructive and effective—if occasionally lengthy—discussions held over four sittings of the Standing Committee. Several points were raised, all of which helped to clarify the meaning of the Bill and aided understanding of it.
Most important, I am delighted to remind the House that, following consultation with the Northern Ireland Office, and after much help from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—to whom I am very grateful—the Bill will now extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am grateful that that is the case, and that many more individuals will be able to use the Noise Bill in their fight against selfish neighbours.
The Committee has amended the Bill to the effect that the penalty notice now costs the offender £100. I emphasise that that is an important adjustment, which will send out the message that such intrusion in the privacy of others is a severe offence, which will be dealt with accordingly. Should the noise persist, an offender will be liable to court fines of £1,000 at a time, and quite possibly the permanent forfeiture of equipment.
I have been asked by some people why the Bill should apply only to night-time noise. It is important to remember that we are attempting to tackle one specific problem at this stage. Daytime noise levels can be higher than night-time levels, but attempts to add provisions relating to daytime noise now might give us too much to do, and there would be a danger of our not achieving the considerable amount that we shall achieve, if we pass the Bill, in tackling night noise.
A start must be made; people are entitled to sleep at night. I am sure that each of us has received numerous complaints from constituents who are upset in some way or other, however great or little, by some form of audible disturbance at night. It is time to put an end to it. Much as I shall miss the hundreds of letters that I receive on the subject, we have an opportunity to do that.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that my Bill will provide important additional powers to tackle this widespread and pernicious problem. I am sure that we all have experience of the adverse effects of domestic noise on the lives and welfare of constituents.
I shall end by quoting a story from The Mail on Sunday of Jack Gott, a 59-year-old retired builder, who took his own life in desperation. Night after night, his teenage neighbour entertained guests who played loud pop music, slammed doors and often had violent rows. Those noises were ever present, and he believed that there was only one way of getting away from them. His sister, with whom I am sure we all wholeheartedly agree, said:

There needs to be a change in the law. Only this will bring justice for the majority against those who just keep on taking liberties.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Nicholls: The last thing I intend to do is sound a discordant note in a debate of this sort. If I raise a particular point, I shall do so quietly, and, I hope, reasonably.
I join in the praise given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. Those who have come to the subject relatively recently have had to read, in one fell tranche, the proceedings of the Standing Committee and the background briefing documents, all of which show that he has done a tremendous amount of work. Even with the resources from the Department of the Environment, to which he so generously referred, any Back-Bench Member who has introduced such a Bill will realise how much work is entailed.
At times, people may look at our deliberations on the Floor of the House and, when they see only 20 Members present, mistake quantity for quality. They do not realise just how much work has gone on behind the scenes. Therefore, in the one point that I want to raise, I do not wish to be obstructive or destructive. I am certainly not trying to raise the temperature—or the noise level.
I, like other Members of Parliament, have received numerous complaints over the years about the effect of noise on people's lives. I am fortunate that my local council, Teignbridge district council, is efficiently run. No council is perfect, but it is a great deal better than the average. I pay tribute to it because, when I take up complaints with it, it does its level best to solve them—although sometimes without the clear-cut powers that we would want it to have.
As highlighted in the excellent Library briefing on the Bill, what irritates people about noise and drives them to desperation differs to some extent. I remember living in a flat in Hammersmith: at about 4 o'clock every morning, a heavy pounding beat would come from the flat below. As far as I could detect, that song—which was obviously a favourite of the tenants—had only four notes, which never varied. It had the same bass all the time. It was intensely aggravating, the sort of nuisance that could drive people to distraction. Had I been an elderly, frail person confined to my flat, I cannot imagine what I might have done.
However, if what had woken me up at 4 o'clock in the morning was a radio that had been turned up a little too loudly by an elderly, frail pensioner, I might have been irritated, but it would not have driven me round the bend in the same way as that music from the flat below. What was annoying about it was that it was so unreasonable. It was the unreasonable and selfish nature of it that made me so angry.
When someone is annoyed by music in that way, we go much further and begin to imagine the motives of people who have such contempt for those around them that they are prepared to behave in that way. Therefore, it is not just the intensity of the noise that is the problem, but the motives behind it.
What troubles me about the Bill is that I can think of occasions when unreasonable people could use it for their purposes. I can find no reference in the Bill or in the


deliberations in Standing Committee—other than two passing remarks—to, for example, an 18th birthday party. By definition, such a party cannot be justified every day of the week. It is not the sort of party encompassed by the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North a few moments ago. It is a one-off occasion, which will not happen more than once in a lifetime.
There is no doubt that what constitutes a good night's entertainment for someone celebrating his first and only 18th birthday will not be seen in the same light by elderly neighbours. The last thing I want is for this excellent Bill to be turned into a "Meldrew's manifesto".
I recall a constituent coming to see me to complain about an extremely noisy event. That person had contacted the council, but, because the event had ended, nothing could be done. I looked into the case, and—to cut a long story short—discovered that it had been an 18th birthday party that had continued until about 4 o'clock in the morning, but that was it. It was as bad as that, but no worse.
When I said to my constituent that I had more or less got to the bottom of the problem, and that it was just an 18th birthday party, I heard a tirade about how young people should have more consideration for elderly people who are in bed by 11 o'clock, and that there was no reason why the young people should not be as well.
At times there can be a clash of cultures. Speaking personally, I could not in all conscience say now, in the middle of the day when I am feeling fairly cheerful, that, even on the nights that I want to go to bed at a reasonable hour, as befits someone of my declining years, I would object to my neighbour having a noisy 18th birthday party and say that he was acting unreasonably if that was the only time it was likely to happen.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Indeed, it was the first question on the Bill raised with me by the sixth form. I said in Committee that, with one-off parties, the people holding them should let their neighbours know about them, and even invite them to come. If they do that, they will be fairly well covered if any dispute arises. Of course, there is always the alternative of borrowing from a friend a property that is well insulated and away from people who might be disturbed by the party. It is all consideration and give and take.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is an eminently reasonable and kind person, so he thinks that everybody will act in the way he suggests. However, I can recall another constituency case.
A friend of mine had a child who was having an 18th birthday party. My friend did as I am sure we would all do: he telephoned the neighbours and said, "Look, I've got bad news for you. James, Mark, Fiona or whoever is about to be 18 and there is going to be a ghastly party with long-haired people and dreadful music. We just wanted to let you know. Why don't you come on down at 8 o'clock, have a few drinks with us and take on board some anaesthetic and then it won't seem so bad?" What did those neighbours do? They telephoned the police and said that there was going to be a noisy party down the road.
I have read the Bill, but I cannot see anything that would provide a defence against that situation. The defence clause—4(2)—states:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that there was a reasonable excuse for the act, default or sufferance in question.
That is all well and good, but it will be a sad business if the few Meldrews in society find out about a party, disapprove of the time of night that it is being held, disapprove of the fact that it will involve young people with a lot of wretched noise and ghetto blasters, and decide that, at one minute past midnight, they will phone the local authority and say, "There's some noise, and I want you down here right now."
If it were my hon. Friend or me on the other end of that telephone, we might ask whether the noise had happened often and whether the person complaining had tried to discover whether it was a one-off 18th or 21st birthday party. What will that person's reaction be? He will probably say, "I am not interested in the motives. I am one of those difficult, awkward cusses who has been able to measure the decibel level. There is too much noise coming from that 18th birthday party, and I want it stopped."
It is all well and good for people to say that that would not happen, but I bet it will, and that is the problem. All of us who have been local councillors, and who are Members of Parliament and lawyers, know that one of the problems with legislation is not that we try to produce a set of regulations and directions to frame the activities of essentially reasonable people, but that we have to try to frame regulations that will not be misused by essentially unreasonable people.
I shall not labour the point, but, as I said, there is nothing in the Bill that I can see to stop a difficult, bloody-minded person saying that they are not going to allow a party to go on because they disapprove of such behaviour, and that they are going to stop it stone dead. I appreciate that nothing can be done today to address that, but it would be immensely sad if, in three, six or nine months' time, the Bill not only achieves what we want, but produces a Meldrew manifesto for the tiny number of unreasonable people in our society.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. The local authority would have discretion over whether to proceed in the cases that he has cited, which is very important. An officer called to a scene may decide to attempt to resolve the problem informally. If he is satisfied that the noise constitutes a statutory noise nuisance, he is under a duty to serve an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There is discretion, and environmental health officers will be people like my hon. Friend and me, as he has described—reasonable, sensible and fair. The matter should and will be properly covered by that means.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend rightly has a grasp of the detail that I could not pretend to have. I only hope that that is right. Clause 2(1) states:
A local authority must, if they receive a complaint of the kind mentioned in subsection (2)",
ensure that it is investigated. The clause goes on to define the circumstances—excessive noise emitted from a dwelling during night-time hours.

Mr. Evennett: My hon. Friend is making some very good points. The problem is persistent noise nuisance,


which the local authority environmental health officer has the right to investigate. That is the key. If the noise occurred on one occasion, the investigation would be made on that basis. If, however, a property was the venue of an 18th birthday party every weekend, the noise would be persistent.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I first entered the House of Commons, courts never looked at our deliberations, but merely considered what was plainly in the Act and what Parliament intended. In a number of respects, that has been altered, and I am sure that our exchanges will be looked at by local authorities when they are considering how they should exercise discretion. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) for making that point.
If one is not careful, one can throw out the baby with the bath water. It was said earlier that the Bill follows steps that the Government have taken to proscribe rave and warehouse parties, where there would be illegal goings-on, which were obviously designed for, and have the effect of being, the venue for all sorts of illegal activity. Even in that context, some young people—curiously, sixth form students again—asked me a t the time whether I was absolutely certain that Parliament was not discriminating against a type of activity in which a generation of a certain age that most of us have long since passed might not want to indulge.
Although I thought that that was wrong in relation to rave parties because I was able to make the point that we were after not a good bash, but something entirely different, such comments sound a note of caution for us. The last thing we would want to do—because it would be wrong for the image of the House, which is important, but also wrong per se—is produce rules and regulations that discriminate against one particular age group in our society and favour another simply because patterns of activities and pastimes differ.
Although I am grateful for the points made about the element of discretion, I can imagine a certain type of person leaning very hard on the environmental health officer and making it abundantly clear that they knew all about events, saying, "They say that it is just a one-off party, but that is entirely wrong. We should be allowed to sleep, and you ought to get out there now."
Difficult cases will require some intelligent and firm guidance on why the Bill was passed. If my hon. Friends are satisfied that those concerns are properly reflected in the Bill, I shall defer to them. I certainly hope that that is the case, because it should be so.

Mr. Evennett: We have had a good debate this morning. I give complete support to the Bill on Third Reading; it is a much-needed and long overdue measure. We look forward to it completing its parliamentary stages and going on to the statute book. We shall then look to the local authorities to implement it and make it effective.
We do not want to be killjoys, but we must realise that we are dealing with a real problem, which has affected so many people. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to which I listened with great interest. We are not talking only about young people who make noise, but about a

wide range of people. We are talking about the do-it-yourself experts who want to do it all the time. Their wives—[Laughter] We have a great opportunity for a bit of mirth at the end of these debates. Certainly there is a wide range of people who are noisy in their homes, which affects the health of many of their neighbours.
The Bill is a great step forward, although it is not the only answer. Education is needed to make young people and not-so-young people more aware of the noise they are making, to make them good citizens and to encourage them to turn down the radio and the television, so that less noise emanates from their dwellings. Education must play a part and there must be a sense of community spirit—the idea that the noise that a person makes may have a detrimental effect on neighbours.
The Bill is a great step forward. I welcome the debates in Committee and on Report; there have been some good and useful exchanges. The Bill was improved in Committee, and, as a result of the amendments that the Minister has promised will be tabled in another place, it will be a much better measure. It is a great start, and I am sure that many people will be pleased with it. I very much hope that it will be implemented, and that we use education to make people more conscious of the noise they make and the effect it has on their neighbours. I hope that people will turn down the noise.

Mr. Merchant: I welcome the Bill warmly, especially in view of the Minister's assurance that amendments will be tabled in the other place, which will overcome the problems about enforcement which rightly exercise people. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his tremendous work in introducing the Bill and in piloting it through to this stage. I have participated, with great pleasure, in discussions on the Bill at each stage, because I strongly support my hon. Friend and believe that the Bill is so necessary.
The Bill is necessary fundamentally because the present law has failed the victims, and that failure needs to be put right. We are talking about an activity that is not just anti-social, but a form of mental assault. If the sleep deprivation that noise from neighbours brings was practised by the police or by the armed forces when interrogating people, it would count as torture. That is the seriousness of the problem.
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to whom I listened with great care and who made some valid points, I believe that the primary importance of the Bill is that it deals with persistent noise makers, the sort of people who upset many of my constituents.

Mr. Nicholls: For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely accept that the Bill is targeted against such people. It is an excellent Bill, and the sooner it becomes law the better. The sole point I made was that we should ensure that we did not inadvertently sweep up people we did not want to be caught by the Bill.

Mr. Merchant: I am greatly reassured by that.
I believe that the one-off noisy party will not normally be brought within the ambit of the Bill. Perhaps my faith in human nature is greater than my hon. Friend's, but I


believe that, if sensible, ordinary, socially-minded people want to have an 18th birthday party, a wedding celebration or whatever, they will usually do what one of my neighbours did a year or so ago, and send everybody within earshot a little note saying, "On Saturday night we are holding a wedding anniversary party".
The people I am talking about were not young people; they were quite elderly, and the anniversary must have been a 20th or a 25th. They warned all the neighbours, and the neighbours, being reasonable people, thought, "Well, there's nothing wrong with that," and smiled to themselves—or, if they were a little more sensitive, they might have mumbled to themselves, but they would have been prepared. They knew that such an event would not happen often—probably only once in 25 years. Certainly it was the only time that such a thing has happened in my area.
When the night came, the party was rather noisy and it did keep me awake, but that did not bother me at all. I simply thought, "They're having a good time," because I was impressed by the fact that those people had been polite and thoughtful enough to inform the neighbours.
If people had objected, after all that, what would they have done? They would have contacted their neighbours and said, "Your noise is getting a bit much. It is 3 in the morning and I can't sleep. Would you mind turning it down?" Most people, being reasonable, would have done so.
Even if things had gone a stage further—although I doubt whether they would have done—and the local authority had been called in, it would have had a duty under the Bill to come, and that is right and proper. But the local authority employee would have had a word with the people holding the party, I imagine in a perfectly friendly way, and the volume would have been turned down, never to be turned up again. Even if all that failed, the party would not be stopped, because the next step would be the issue of a warning notice, and then the noise would stop. But I imagine that by then the party would probably have come to an end, anyway.
I do not believe that there will be any problem for the one-off party of that nature. The Bill will stop, and is aimed at, the persistent noise-maker and troublemaker who causes such great distress that he effectively ruins people's lives. The Bill will give relief and protection from such people, primarily because of its massive deterrent impact. As I have read and understood the Bill at its various stages, that is its prime purpose. Its target is to prevent and deter.
However, in the unlikely event of the deterrence not working, for the few extreme cases that will remain, the Bill has within it a mechanism for taking firm, effective and thorough action to stop the noise. Because of those two aspects, the deterrence and the effective enforcement, the Bill will achieve a great deal. It will protect our constituents, and the fact that the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will for ever be associated with it does him great credit.

Mr. Thomason: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I entirely support the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on the work that he has put in. However, I should like to flag up one or two issues at this stage.
I am disappointed in that the Bill does not go far enough. I realise that one has to be cautious in introducing such legislation, and take things a step at a time. But the Bill is limited to night time, and I have certainly had complaints from constituents about noise during the day. Noise in the daytime is especially difficult for people with very small children, who may need to sleep during the day, and it is also difficult for the elderly. I hope that, in future, it may be possible to consider extending the hours if the Bill proves effective.
The second point that concerns me is the fact that the Bill applies only to noise emanating from dwellings. We may be told that there are already sufficient statutory provisions governing noise from other areas, but people in my constituency have certainly had problems caused by non-conforming users, whose noise has come not necessarily from an industrial process but from ghetto blasters played by people who are working. In a residential neighbourhood, even a building site can create an enormous amount of unnecessary noise—that is, noise unrelated to building activities.
In future, I hope that it will prove possible to extend this type of legislation to sites that are not purely dwelling houses, in situations in which existing legislation may be defective, or at least not sufficiently powerful.
I should be grateful if the Minister will deal with another concern. The Bill is quite specific about what is a dwelling—it uses the words "in a dwelling". I realise that many complaints come from occupants of flats, and particularly from occupants of houses that have been converted to flats, in which noise regulations may be insufficiently tight to cover noise travelling from one dwelling unit to another.
Some of those complaints, however, relate to dwellings in what was described earlier as "the leafy suburbs", where people sometimes take radios out into a garden and have a party at night. If it is a matter of an occasional party, I accept that perhaps there should not be a complaint about it. But people sometimes have parties regularly, which spill out into a garden area around the dwelling, and people sometimes make other noises with equipment during the night that is not entirely conducive to their neighbours' sleep.
I wonder whether it would be appropriate to consider carefully whether "dwelling" for the purposes of the Act includes the curtilage of a dwelling? If it does not, I wonder whether it might be right for another place to consider that matter. I understand that the normal definition of dwelling is deemed to include curtilage, but provisions in the Act—I think it is clause 2—state "in a dwelling", perhaps implying inside an accommodation unit. I shall be happy if I can be assured that the normal concept of dwelling will apply here, and that it will include gardens. I think that that matter needs clarification, and I should be delighted to receive it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I reassure my hon. Friend, on the important point that he is making, that the Bill will apply to dwelling houses, including gardens. That is written into the Bill.

Mr. Thomason: I am most grateful for that clarification.
I should like to mention one final point, which was touched on in some of the amendments I tabled that have not been called. I am a little concerned about threats that


may follow from people making complaints. It is a difficult issue. People who play loud radios or whatever are not always aware of the concerns of others, and sometimes behave in an overtly violent manner. People are clearly frightened about making complaints against neighbours, and particularly against neighbours of that disposition.
If those neighbours observe local authority officers going into a complainant's house and recording noise in that house or flat, it becomes self-evident who made the complaint. However, if local authority officers were required to take measurements outside a dwelling, the complainant could not be clearly ascertained. Noise levels would, of course, have to be adjusted, because what one hears outside will be louder than what is heard inside a neighbouring dwelling, but that can be easily overcome by the manner in which the Secretary of State prescribes noise levels. The possibility of intimidation should be carefully considered, and I trust reviewed, during the Bill's progress.
I re-emphasise that none of my comments is intended to be destructive of the Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. In recent years, there have been 17 recorded deaths as a direct result of noise nuisance. In the past 10 years, some 10,000 disputes between neighbours have been resolved by mediation, and 60 per cent. of those disputes were caused by noise. Noise is a serious problem, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and his supporters on their work.

Mr. Jenkin: I join in the general congratulations and the paeans of praises being heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has done a tremendous job in getting the Bill this far. I greatly look forward to it receiving a Third Reading and moving to another place for them up there to see whether they can improve it.
The Bill has widespread general support, and it must be encouraging for people outside to see Members of Parliament discussing something that affects their everyday lives and is not a matter of party political dispute. There are plenty of issues that unite hon. Members of all parties rather than divide us, and it is important that people outside realise that.
I pay tribute to Tendring district council and Colchester borough council for the work that their environmental health departments already do in trying to control noise. As Mr. Coulter, the director of environmental and technical services of Tendring council, pointed out to me in a letter:
Social indicators show general environmental exposure to noise has increased and there is a greater expectation now to live in a quieter environment.
If the Bill achieves its objectives, we shall be helping local authorities such as Tendring to provide a quieter environment.
Colchester borough council said:
We look forward, with interest, to the transformation of this Bill into an Act of Parliament.
That is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
However, in paying tribute to my hon. Friend and to people such as Colin Daines, the environmental control manager with Colchester borough council, I wish to draw

the House's attention to something that we must not forget. If the Bill is successful, we shall increasingly be sending public servants into difficult and possibly dangerous situations. Confronting one party or the other in a serious dispute between neighbours can be extremely hazardous.
A letter from one of the local authorities in my area states:
All the provisions, including service of both warning notice and fixed penalty and the seizure of equipment, would bring local authority officers into potentially highly dangerous conflict situations. There is a school of thought that the ability of the police to deal with night time noise in Scotland has its merits.
If we get the Bill on to the statute book, we must be ready to encourage the police to play their part in noise abatement. It is not right that we should expect civilian local authority public servants to put themselves in danger, as they will undoubtedly have to do if they are to achieve the Bill's objective.
As has been said, the Bill's aim is to ensure that people have the right to peace and quiet. It is a right that most of us can enjoy, although most of us have at some time been deprived of it, especially at night, which is the main subject of the Bill. The Bill is therefore a very necessary extension of human rights in a very important sphere.
I am reminded of a distinguished former Member of the House, who regularly had his hair cut by the House barber. The barber at that time was a chatty man and used to talk garrulously to his clients. When the former Member, who left the House some time ago, was asked, after a long preamble, "How would you like your hair cut, sir?", he replied, "In silence." That serves as a reminder that we all value our peace, quiet and silence, and we should do our best to extend that to as many people as possible.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on piloting the Bill through the House. Many people up and down the country will welcome it when it is fully enacted. I also congratulate The Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard on the campaigns that they ran. I am sure that all of us who have experienced the problem in our constituencies or in our own lives agree that noise nuisance must be abhorred. Every year, the lives of thousands of people are made intolerable because of persistent noise caused by selfish and unthinking neighbours. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) pointed out, some 17 people have been killed or have committed suicide in the past few years as a result of neighbourhood disputes about noise.
The scale of the problem cannot be ignored and is everincreasing. In 1993–94, local authorities received 130,000 complaints about noise from domestic premises, an increase of 10 per cent. on the previous year and the seventh consecutive year in which an increase occurred. Since then, I expect that the increase has continued remorselessly.
The Bill will address some of the problems by introducing measures to stop noise at night, but it is only a start. Letters from my constituents and from those of other hon. Members reveal how complex noise disputes between neighbours can be. A constituent recently wrote to tell me that her life was made intolerable by the tenant


in the flat above, who stomped about all night, ran about shouting and threw things across the floor. My constituent became so miserable that she was forced to stay elsewhere with her children. But the noisy tenant was mentally ill, and had been moved into that accommodation as a result of the care in the community policy. Giving him a warning notice and fining him £100 would probably achieve very little.
The Bill is limited, but understandably so. It will help people who are suffering from the blasts of the stereo next door, but perhaps will not apply in sensitive cases where the situation is complicated by a more fundamental problem, such as mental illness. We need to look comprehensively at all the issues. However, it is time that we brought back the balance of rights and responsibilities that neighbours owe to one another, which at the moment seems to be out of kilter.
Labour fully recognises that every citizen and every family has a right to a quiet life, free from unacceptable noise, harassment and criminal behaviour from their neighbours. Last year, our document "A Quiet Life" proposed a new community safety order; a special form of injunction to restrain criminal anti-social behaviour by individuals or groups. Our proposals were tough—I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling. They are tough, but they need to be. It is time we recognised the hell that people's lives can turn into because of neighbours' irresponsible behaviour.
We all have a right to a quiet life and a responsibility to live quietly, so that others can enjoy their lives. I pay tribute to Val Gibson and the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). We in Lewisham have benefited from the campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) was successful a year or two ago in our borough, with the support of Val Gibson. I should add that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who led for the Opposition during the Second Reading debate, cannot be here today but endorses Third Reading.
I should like to mention briefly the most controversial aspect of the Bill, which is about mandatory or adoptive measures. I said earlier that four out of five environmental health officers were worried that their authorities would not implement the new power if the matter were left purely to choice. We strongly feel that the problems caused by noise are so severe that the Bill should have been mandatory. I have some regrets that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford was not accepted. However, I take hope and assurance from the Minister's response, and I look forward to the amendments in another place that might make that provision a little more possible.
Noise disturbance in urban areas is particularly marked because of the nature of urban areas. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford mentioned that earlier. We are also concerned about the unfair situation that would arise when noise makers on one side of the street faced fixed penalty notices and those on the other could make as much noise as they wanted because the street was divided by a local authority boundary. So I welcome amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, which will take account of that. To allow people such unequal rights to peace and quiet would simply be unfair.
Mention was made of Wandsworth and Lambeth. I would not want to see the council tax payers of Lambeth having to bear the burden of keeping Wandsworth a peaceful and quiet place. It works in both directions.
Of course, the problem of noise is not confined to urban areas. Mention has been made of rural areas and the difficulties that can arise there. Problems include loud music, raves and such like. We have to be cognisant of those things. Of course, the severity of the problem varies in different areas and there must be some flexibility of response so that resources are not wasted. None the less, I strongly believe that anyone suffering from unbearable noise made by their neighbours deserves the backing and support of his or her council in dealing with the problem.
Noise now generates more complaints to environmental health departments than any other subject, and lives are at stake. We have to take the problem seriously. One of the most important changes in the Bill is the introduction of fixed penalty notices. I am delighted that the penalty was increased from £40 to £100 in Committee, because I am aware that local authorities felt that, at £40, the level would have been derisory and would have undermined the financial penalties for statutory noise nuisance. I believe that the fixed penalty notice will have an instant deterrent effect on those making noise and will avoid a long wait for court time. The on-the-spot remedy is necessary to stop noise speedily at its source, but it is not without its problems.
As the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said, when local authority officers are sent out, they may feel an element of danger. Some may be unwilling to enter a property without the support of a police officer. We know that many local authorities and police forces work well together in a number of partnership areas. I hope that that will turn out to be another such possibility.
That equally applies to police co-operation in using the powers to confiscate noise equipment. I can say to the hon. Member for Ealing, North that we were delighted that the Bill made provision for the seizure of equipment and that it now clarifies what can be taken. I am encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of senior environmental health officers believe that they will be very likely to use those powers. However, they would be worried about using them in some instances without police co-operation. I stress that we hope that the police will work closely with local authorities on the issue and that provision will be made for adequate police back-up when local authorities undertake the new duties.
The Bill applies only to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Mention has been made of Scotland and I cannot resist picking up that point. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 allows the police considerably greater powers on noise, including the power to stop people singing if it is causing others a nuisance. Perhaps when the Bill is reviewed one day, we should consider whether some of the laws that apply in Scotland should be extended to England and Wales.
The Bill refers to the making of noise above a certain level, which the Secretary of State will determine. We are currently talking about 35 dB, which I fear may be too high. Music and words may be clearly audible in someone's house and loud enough to constitute a nuisance at lower noise levels. While it is intended that the night noise provision is separate from, and in addition to, statutory noise procedures, there is a danger that the level


chosen for the night noise offence will be regarded as acceptable and therefore used as a defence against statutory nuisance proceedings. That would make matters substantially worse for people who suffer from noisy neighbours. I hope that the noise level will be set as low as is reasonable.
The Opposition support the Bill. It is a first step to alleviate some of the most difficult problems that people face. I look forward to amendments being made in another place to enhance it further. I congratulate again the hon. Member for Ealing, North on getting it through. I hope that it will have a speedy passage, so that my constituents in Lewisham and those of other hon. Members can enjoy a quiet life.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) fully deserves the warm congratulations that have been showered upon him from both sides of the House. We heard on Second Reading and in Committee how widespread is the problem of noise in everyday life, especially in urban settings. There is already a substantial body of legislation to protect people who suffer from noise and noisy neighbours, but I am sure that his Bill will be recognised in the fulness of time as an important addition to existing protection. It will help local authorities and environmental health officers to tackle the problem of noise and, most importantly, give relief and protection to members of the public who suffer from the problem of night-time noise.
We have had an important but short Third Reading debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a valuable contribution. We must be wary of the people whom he described as the Victor Meldrews of society—people of an unreasonable disposition. I invite him to take as a starting point the right of members of the public and householders to peace and quiet at night. We cannot go into their minds and examine their motives, dispositions and reasons for wanting to uphold it, but that right exists and if it has been violated, they deserve protection and to have it upheld. In most cases, there would be more to it than that. In fact, the Bill will relieve people who suffer from the sort of problems described by my hon. Friends of persistent noise makers—especially involving loud music, but including other sorts of noise—who behave unreasonably.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge made a valuable point. We must all be reasonable and considerate. An obvious and good first step for someone having a party would be to contact neighbours and possibly to think of inviting them.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Although I did not have a chance to involve myself with the Bill previously, I have been following the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made an important point. I am not satisfied that the Bill contains any protection against the persistent complainant. We have been talking about the persistent offender, but what happens if someone does not behave reasonably and keeps complaining? Clause 2(1) states that a "local authority must" take action if it receives a complaint. What will happen if someone unreasonably complains time and again?

Mr. Clappison: It is up to the neighbour to ensure that there is no substance in the complaint and that the right

is not being violated. That is the first step. Hon. Friends who are concerned about the Bill will see that a number of safeguards are built in and that it is not possible for an unreasonable person to take it into his head to persecute his next-door neighbour by alleging noise. First, there is the protection that the matter is in the hands of the local environmental health officer. It is up to him whether he decides to serve a notice under clause 2(4), which states:
he may serve a notice"—
he is not obliged to do so, but the power is there.
I also invite my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) to consider the fact that a notice must be served before there is any question of a fixed penalty or any other fine being incurred. That notice gives the person who receives it a warning that the amount of noise coming from his or her premises exceeds the fixed permitted level, and it is up to that person to do something about it.
Frankly, if someone who receives such a notice pays it no heed and continues to make noise above the permitted level between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, he or she is clearly violating an established right. I suggest that safeguards are there in the form of the notice and the discretion. It is up to people to think about their neighbours and to respect their right to peace and quiet.

Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was the vexatious complainant and the initiation of the process. Clause 2 contains protection for the local authority against having to investigate every vexatious complaint. The obligation is to take "reasonable steps". If the initial complaint is unreasonable, in that it is a repeat of a complaint that has been found wanting time and again, I think that there is no obligation on a local authority to continue to investigate. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would confirm that.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. He will know that local authorities already have the power to investigate complaints against those who are breaching statutory noise nuisance regulations, which apply around the clock and not just at night. No doubt they can adopt the same practices with regard to offences under this Bill, with the same result.
It is important to establish that, if someone is making noise above a certain level at night, he or she is violating a right. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) referred to the level of noise, and it is an important point. It is set at a level that is thought to be intrusive and to affect a good night's sleep between 11 pm and 7 am.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) asked what would happen about noise made at other times. We are all aware of the problems of shift workers, people with young children and babies and so forth. He should be aware that the existing law of statutory nuisance will apply on such occasions. As I understand it, a duty is placed on local authorities to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance, which can be brought before the courts and proved in the same way that that is proved now. This offence clarifies the situation with regard to night-time noise, by introducing a fixed limit and other provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) made an important point about police officers—I think that the hon. Member for Lewisham,


East mentioned that, too—and how they fit into the scheme of things in the Bill. That was debated at some length in Committee.
Of course, police officers may at present play a role in the investigation of statutory nuisance by local authority officers. In Committee, hon. Members spoke from their experience of situations in which local authority officers needed the assistance of the police, especially when there might be a threat to order. The hon. Lady may know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is working with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health to develop a code of practice on liaison. Obviously, we hope that that work brings worthwhile results and assists in liaison. Local authority officers should receive help when there is a threat to order in such situations.
The Bill will be of assistance in setting a fixed level of noise—it does not leave scope for argument about whether noise is too loud. When the noise measurement is taken, the environmental health officer will be able to point out to the noise maker that the noise is above the permitted level. The Bill introduces a level of clarity, which will be helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove asked for the definition of "dwelling", and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred him to clause 11(3)(a). I hope that that definition satisfies my hon. Friend—he is nodding in agreement.
There have been questions whether the Bill would apply, for example, to commercial kennels, stables, cowsheds and the like. The Bill deals with domestic sources of noise. Trials of the technical aspects of the night noise offence have shown that the method cannot readily measure intermittent noise, such as a dog barking or a horse neighing. As I have already said, avenues are available to people through the existing law to deal with such situations.
Dogs may bark in the night and caravans may move on, but the Bill will be a lasting tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. He is concerned for his constituents. He will have the satisfaction of having brought before the House a measure that will protect the right of people to a peaceful night's sleep. The measure will be widely welcomed in the community.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I warmly thank the Minister for his consistent support and for his kind remarks. I also thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) for her kind remarks. I thank my colleagues for their support, which has been greatly appreciated. We have had great teamwork in this regard—we are working to gain a better life for our constituents, and that is what matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Treasure Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Bill reported, without amendment.

—Order for Third Reading read.

Sir Anthony Grant: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am encouraged by the warm welcome that the Bill has received. It had good cross-party support on Second Reading and in Committee. However, three points have arisen during the passage of the Bill and I would like to clear them up.
The National Art Collection Fund wrote to me, and to other members of the Committee, saying that the Bill does not go far enough, and, in particular, that it fails to provide protection to all archaeologically significant objects. The scope of the Bill has always been constrained by the need to avoid any resource implications.
As I said in Committee, I recognise that many important objects will be excluded from the current definition of "treasure" in the Bill. Quite simply, it is impossible to frame a definition that includes all those objects that are agreed to be important, while at the same time excluding common finds of limited archaeological interest.
Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to designate additional classes of object as treasure by statutory instrument, thus making it possible to review the operation of the new system from time to time, and to make the adjustments that might be found necessary without having to introduce primary legislation.

Mr. Roy Thomason: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, and commend him for all the hard work that he has put into it. At this stage, does he think that it would be appropriate to consider widening the definition in the Bill to include bronze objects, which often have considerable value as antiquities?

Sir Anthony Grant: We debated that in considerable detail in Committee. It remains for the Government to pursue that possibility through the measure provided in the Bill.
A recent survey suggested that about 400,000 objects of archaeological interest are found each year. To include all those objects within the definition of treasure would make the Bill so contentious to metal detectorists and landowners that it would never get through Parliament. In any case, substantial additional resources would be needed to operate such a system.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee:
In an idea world, the provisions of the Bill would have been more wide ranging … however, it would not have been possible to get such a … Bill through.—Official Report, Standing Committee C, 17 April 1996; c.12.]
So half a loaf is better than no bread.
Some archaeologists had their doubts about the Bill when it was originally introduced in another place by Lord Perth two years ago. I understand, however, that, now that the Government have admitted in their


discussion document "Portable Antiquities" that there is an urgent need to deal with the problem of recording all archaeological finds—not just those covered by the Bill—my Bill enjoys wide support from the archaeological world, which recognises that it is the best that can be achieved.
Lord Renfrew, a leading archaeologist—and, I am happy to say, a most distinguished academic from Cambridge, and a supporter of the Bill—has acknowledged its achievement. The two initiatives represented by my Bill and the proposal for a voluntary scheme of recording all archaeological objects represent a major advance. Should the Minister catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may say a little more about the Government's proposals.
I hope that the National Art Collections Fund will join all other leading archaeological bodies and museums in supporting the two-pronged strategy in the Bill.
I have received a letter from the Country Landowners Association underlining its support for my Bill, for which I am grateful. It asked for an assurance, however, that the code of practice on rewards that it provides should make it clear that such rewards will only be allocated to trespassers in the most exceptional circumstances. I agree, and I sympathise with that request.
I am aware that some of my hon. Friends said on Second Reading that the Bill should specify that in no circumstances should trespassers be rewarded. I have considered the matter carefully, and I have concluded that an amendment to that effect could cause difficulties, because the circumstances of each case are different, and many cases would not be black and white. In practice, there would be many grey cases, and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to include a precise provision on the allocations of rewards in the Bill.
The Secretary of State should instead be given a limited discretion within the guidelines set out in the code of practice, which will, of course, be the subject of public consultation before it is finalised. I hope that the Minister will be able to spell out in more detail what he thinks should be the guiding principles on the payment of rewards.
Thirdly, I know that many metal detectorists have written to their Member of Parliament, expressing their fears that my Bill is directed solely against detectorists, and saying that it is a first step in an attempt to ban metal detecting. I say once again, clearly, that nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the Bill is hostile to metal detectorists. It contains no restrictions on metal detecting; it simply clarifies what should and should not be reported.
I entirely agree with the words of Mr. Dennis Jordan, president of the National Council for Metal Detecting, who pointed out in a letter to The Times on 19 April 1996:
The Bill will apply to all persons intentionally searching for or casually finding treasure. It is not directed solely at metal detectorists. All those who find treasure, whether they are detectorists, archaeologists or chance finders such as farmers or workmen, will be equally subject to the provisions, as is the case indeed under the existing law.
I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave an assurance on Second Reading that neither the Government nor the European Union have any plans to ban or restrict responsible metal detecting. I believe,

and have repeatedly said, that responsible detectorists have an important role to play in recovering and saving our rich heritage.
Officials of the Department of National Heritage and of the British museum have held a series of meetings about the Bill with the National Council for Metal Detecting, and they have put it on record that they found the national council's contributions to the discussions very useful indeed.
I have now made four separate amendments to the Bill to allay the detectorists' fears. Taken together, they significantly improve the Bill.

Mr. Thomason: I come to this subject relatively fresh, but I note the provisions in clause 1, which stipulates a period by virtue of which something will fall within the ambit of the Bill. I do not wish to be destructive of the provision—on the contrary, I believe that the Bill is an excellent step—but I wonder whether there is a danger that people will inadvertently breach the provisions by virtue of those specific periods, and items falling outside or inside the age requirement, bearing in mind that the offences, as stipulated later in the Bill, appear to be of an absolute nature. I seek clarification.

Sir Anthony Grant: That provision—like many others—is meant to be interpreted reasonably. No one will suggest that someone who makes an accidental mistake will be dealt with in a draconian fashion. The sensible answer for anyone who discovers something is to take the advice of experts—of whom there are plenty. I anticipate no difficulty. That point was not taken up in Committee.
I believe that the Bill is improved by the amendments I have made. I repeat that, without the co-operation of all the finders who reported their finds promptly to the proper authorities in recent years, a great deal of valuable information about our nation's past would have been lost. Responsible detectorists do have a very important part to play in our national heritage, for the benefit of us all.
I hope that, once the dust has settled and they realise that the Bill is not the threat that some people have attempted to portray, detectorists and archaeologists will be able to work together harmoniously, in the interests of our heritage.
I express my thanks to those who have put so much effort into treasure trove reform over a long period. As I acknowledged on Second Reading, many people have devoted a great deal of their time over many years. I shall single out three who may have made the greatest contribution.
First, the project would not have got off the ground without the extraordinary determination and enthusiasm of Lord Perth. I know how disappointing it was for him that his 1994 Treasure Trove Bill [Lords] never made progress in the House because it had not received time for debate. I hope that he now feels that his efforts were not in vain.
Secondly, I acknowledge the work of the Surrey Archaeological Society, which started this initiative nearly 10 years ago. I think especially of its honorary secretary, Mr. David Graham, who has worked tirelessly on this for many years in a purely honorary capacity.
Finally, I pay tribute to Dr. Roger Bland—a fellow Pauline, although at school more recently than I—who has been a fountain of knowledge and a tower of strength throughout the Bill's passage.
As I said on Second Reading, this is an historic occasion, because this is the first piece of legislation in this area that has ever been debated by this House. I trust that we will now join the great majority of other civilised countries in passing a law to protect our rich and important heritage of portable antiquities. I hope that hon. Members will join me in wishing the Bill a safe and speedy passage through the other place.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I wish briefly to join the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) in congratulating and praising those people outside the House whom he identified—Ted Graham, Roger Bland and others—without whom the processes of this House would be much less well informed. We certainly would not have reached this stage with the Bill.
In particular, we congratulate Lord Perth, the father of this Bill, who has a very able and interesting son in its promoter. The Bill was well debated on Second Reading and in Committee. There is not much more to say, except to reiterate the Opposition's support for this sensible, well thought-out and constructive piece of legislation.
I hope that, when the Minister replies to what I think will be a very brief debate, he will say something about the code of practice that will augment and amplify the Bill. The Bill provides a framework that has been much needed for many years. The code of practice will be essential in determining how effective the framework will be.
Hon. Members recognise that this is not the last word on the subject—the whole question of portable antiquities and the wider aspects raised by the Bill remains to be clarified and resolved—the Bill is an excellent start. I hope that it enjoys the Government's support, and that it will be constructively and intelligently implemented.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I begin by saying how grateful we are to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant). He decently and properly paid tribute to those who have done so much in the past. It is worth placing on the record the fact that, traditionally, this sort of Bill is not easy to get through Parliament, for all sorts of technical parliamentary reasons. My hon. Friend mentioned the Bill introduced by Lord Perth and said that it had foundered because of a lack of parliamentary time.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend on his handling of the problem relating to metal detectorists. There was a great deal of misunderstanding about how the Bill could affect them. Time after time, my hon. Friend has made himself available to speak to and reassure them. Now, with his final—I hope and presume—declaration that the Bill will in no way harm metal detectorists, I am sure that the fear among that fraternity can be laid to rest. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that he has managed to take a potentially problematic part of the Bill through the House without contention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) raised a couple of important points with which I will deal later. More generally, the question whether bronze should be included is being considered. In fact, if the Secretary of State finds that certain classes of objects should be added, he will have the power to do so by order—by affirmative resolution, I think.
My hon. Friend was also concerned that somebody would find a hoard, part of a hoard or an object of value and not declare that within the 14 days specified in the Bill, thereby being in breach of the law. My hon. Friend can be reassured that written into our previous debates, both in the Chamber and in Committee, was the provision that any reasonable excuse—such as, "I didn't realise it was an ancient bit of a sword," or, "This was part of a hoard of valuable coins"—will be taken into account, no doubt under Pepper v. Hart or whatever, by the courts. Although my hon. Friend can be reasonably sure that both his points will be covered, I shall deal with them in rather more detail shortly.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an important point on portable antiquities. The reason why I might take slightly longer to address this point than my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire did is that, although the Bill is important, it is only one part of the Government's strategy, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged by implication.
It is extremely important that, on Third Reading, I explain the Government's view—as opposed to my hon. Friend's view of his Bill—as outlined in the portable antiquities document which, as the House knows, we published in February and on which we are consulting until, I think, the end of next month, given all the points that were raised in Committee on whether such and such an object would have to be reported, how we would ensure that we have a record of the provenance of various discovered objects, and how all such points are taken into account.
I should like to respond to two points that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire raised: first, the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough, and, secondly, the question of rewards, which was a matter of great concern to hon. Members on Second Reading. I know that the Country Landowners Association has raised it again.
My hon. Friend mentioned the concerns of the National Art Collections Fund that the scope of the Bill is too restricted. In order to answer that very important point, it might be helpful if I explained to the House the proposals set out in our recently published discussion document on portable antiquities, since it is vital to realise that the initiative complements the Bill.
The Government believe that it is important to distinguish between two quite separate aspects of the problem: the public acquisition of finds, and the recording of them. Treasure trove, in effect, gives museums the right of first refusal to certain finds, providing that they can find the money to pay full rewards for them. The Bill addresses the anomalies of the archaic law of treasure trove. On the other hand, there is widespread agreement that the reporting of finds, so that they can be properly recorded, is of key importance—more important in some ways, as I am sure my hon. Friend would not mind me saying, than the public acquisition of them.
Understandably, given parliamentary constraints, the Bill will make only limited adjustments to the classes of objects that are legally required to be reported, and there will continue to be no legal requirement to report other important categories of find. For that reason, we have published a discussion document on portable antiquities, which contains proposals for a voluntary scheme for the recording of all archaeological objects found in England and Wales.
The Government accept that the present arrangements for the recording of portable antiquities are, on the whole, not working well and that there is an urgent need for action to record such objects, as they are irreplaceable and of great importance to the nation's heritage.
We believe that portable antiquities are important for two main reasons: intrinsically, for what they tell us about the people who made and used them, and as evidence for the existence of hitherto unknown archaeological sites. Unfortunately, much potential knowledge to be gained from finds is lost, because arrangements for their recording vary greatly in quality across the country. Increasing concern is being expressed by archaeologists and others that important archaeological information, arising from the objects themselves or from the opportunity to carry out investigations, is being lost in this way.
We recognise that the great majority of metal detector users practise their hobby responsibly, especially those who belong to clubs affiliated to the National Council for Metal Detecting. Many readily co-operate with museums and archaeologists—a professional opinion can add greatly to the interest of an important find. However, it remains very unsatisfactory that, for the majority of cases, there are no arrangements—formal or otherwise—for finds to be recorded. The Department believes that the excellent arrangements in place in a few areas provide a pointer to what we should be trying to achieve over time throughout the country.
The document states that, although most archaeological objects are found today with metal detectors, by no means all are. We would therefore need to look at the arrangements for the reporting of archaeological objects, even if metal detectors did not exist. It also states that to deplore the loss to our knowledge caused by the lack of arrangements for the reporting of finds is not a criticism of finders but simply highlights the weakness of the current reporting arrangements.
Just as we have made it clear that the proposed reform of treasure trove will not contain any restrictions on legitimate metal detecting, so our proposals on the recording of archaeological objects will seek to involve metal detectorists as far as possible. Metal detectorists rightly point out that they are responsible for finding most of the archaeological objects that come to light, so the Government hope that they will welcome the opportunity to have their finds recorded more easily than is possible at the moment. Metal detectorists would also, of course, benefit from having their finds identified, and it is worth stressing that the proposals would not in any way extend the rights of museums to acquire finds.
The discussion document looks at the relative merits of voluntary and compulsory systems for the recording of finds. Under a voluntary system, the Government would draw up, in consultation with representatives of museums,

archaeological organisations and metal detectorists, a voluntary scheme for the recording of archaeological objects found in England and Wales.
We believe that, if the scheme is to be effective, it will need to be accompanied by a campaign of education to encourage finders to report their finds. One of the advantages of such an approach is that it would not require primary legislation, so, providing that general agreement for it could be obtained, it could be introduced with the minimum of delay.
A compulsory system, on the other hand, would require primary legislation, and that would cut across the approach behind the Bill. There must also be severe doubts whether a statutory requirement to report all archaeological objects would be effective, given that it is unlikely that there would be a consensus behind such an approach. A recent survey estimated that there are 30,000 metal detectorists finding perhaps 400,000 objects of archaeological significance each year.
Last year, the Council of British Archaeology established a standing conference on portable antiquities, with the aim of bringing together all the leading archaeological and museum bodies to reach a consensus on these issues. At its first meeting last year, the standing conference approved a resolution urging the early reintroduction of the Treasure Bill into Parliament, together with the introduction of a reporting scheme for archaeological artefacts that were outside the scope of the Bill.
I am drawing those two points together so that everyone can understand what we have done, why we are doing it and the time scale within which we are doing it. I believe that the standing conference will acknowledge that considerable progress has been made in both those directions. It had its second meeting on 1 May, to which my Department sent a senior official as an observer, and I have been encouraged to learn that it unanimously backed the idea of a voluntary scheme for the recording of all archaeological objects.
I mention that point to show that there now seems to be a consensus in the archaeological and museum world on the best way forward. There has not always been agreement, and the fact that there is now general support from archaeologists and museum curators for a limited reform of treasure trove, combined with a voluntary recording scheme, means that progress will be that much easier. We should recognise that the new approach means that the archaeological world has moved substantially in favour of a spirit of co-operation with metal detectorists and away from earlier attempts to ban or restrict the activity. I like to think that my Department has helped to move that process along.
I understand that some antiquities dealers have already said that they would welcome a voluntary scheme, but would resist a compulsory scheme. I know from discussions that officials from my Department have had with metal detectorists that they would also participate in a voluntary scheme, but would probably oppose a compulsory one. For those reasons, I believe that there is every likelihood that a voluntary scheme will win general support. Our provisional view is that it would be right initially to go for a voluntary system, while recognising that there might be a need in the long term to move towards a legal requirement if the voluntary system proved to be ineffective.
I stress that those conclusions are only provisional, as the consultation period for the discussion document does not close until the end of June. Nevertheless, I hope that, if agreement is forthcoming, we may be able to take the proposals forward during the autumn. At the same time, we shall also consider how such a scheme might be funded. The House will understand that we felt that it was best to obtain agreement on the principle of a voluntary approach first.
I stress that we view these proposals as being as important in their way as the Treasure Bill. I have set them out in some detail, because I would like to assure the National Art Collections Fund and others that we are giving the issue a high priority.
I now turn to the question of rewards, which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire mentioned this morning, and which many hon. Members mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee. I believe that the Bill strikes a fair compromise between the interests of finders and landowners, which are not necessarily the same.
I understand that the view has been expressed that the Bill will compulsorily deprive landowners of their property. That is highly misleading. At present, the legal position concerning title to discovered objects that are not treasure trove is very ambiguous, and in recent cases, both finders and landowners have been able to assert their claims.
Under the existing law of treasure trove, any gold or silver objects that were buried with the intention of recovery, and whose owner is unknown, become the property of the Crown. The Bill will widen the number of objects that can be claimed by the Crown only in a very modest way.
The current practice is that the Crown offers treasure troves to museums, which must pay the finder a full reward if they wish to keep them; otherwise, the objects are returned to the finder. At present, landowners are not eligible for rewards under any circumstances—not even if the finder has been trespassing, so long as he has reported his find promptly. Under the Bill, rewards will still be payable when museums wish to acquire treasure, and it will make landowners and occupiers eligible for rewards for the first time. It will also give them the right to be informed of finds of treasure reported to have been made on their land.
The Country Landowners Association, whose support for the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said, is most welcome, has asked for clarification on how rewards are to be allocated under the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, the CLA is concerned in particular about the possibility of trespassers receiving rewards, Some of the hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading felt that it should be written into the Bill that under no circumstances should trespassers be rewarded.
However, I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the need to retain some discretion in the payment of rewards. In the Department, we know from experience that many of the cases that arise are not straightforward. There is a real risk that a provision stating that under no circumstances would finders who were trespassing be

eligible for rewards, would be a serious disincentive to the reporting of finds. It could therefore drive many finds on to the black market, and possibly lead to their being exported without a licence, which would achieve nothing.
During the Committee stage on Lord Perth's Bill in another place in March 1994, my colleague Lady Trumpington said:
I cannot emphasize too strongly that our paramount objective is to encourage the reporting of finds. We clearly need to ensure that adequate incentives to finders are preserved under any new arrangements. At the same time we want to discourage wrong behaviour."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 1994; Vol. 553, c. 733.]
Those are the principles that will guide us.
Detailed guidelines on how the Secretary of State will pay rewards will be set out in the code of practice provided for in clause 11, which will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties—for example, bodies representing landowners, metal detectorists and museums. As a further safeguard, the code will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure before the Bill can take effect.
Obviously it would be wrong for me to anticipate here what may come out of the consultations on the code of practice. However, I can say that we envisage that landowners and occupiers will be eligible for rewards under certain circumstances—for example, if the finder has clearly been trespassing.
I can reassure the Country Landowners Association that where there is clear evidence that a finder has been intentionally and knowingly trespassing for the purpose of searching for treasure, we would not expect him to be eligible for a reward. However, in the great majority of cases, in which the finder has permission to be on the land, we expect that the Department would comply with any arrangement made between the finder and the landowner over the division of any reward.
Before leaving that part of the Bill, it is important to stress that clause 11(5) does not mean that rewards will routinely be split equally between finders, occupiers and landowners. As I have said, our general approach will be to respect agreements made between finders and landowners. Finders normally make an agreement to split any reward equally with the landowner as a condition for receiving permission to search on their land, and the Government would like to encourage that as an example of good practice.
Before I conclude, I shall remind the House of the main points of the Bill. Its chief purpose is to clarify exactly what type of find should be reported, and what will be classed as treasure. At present, that is unclear, and is the cause of much confusion.
The Bill is therefore essentially a technical measure intended to deal with the worst anomalies of the current law, and to streamline the present rather cumbersome administration of treasure trove cases. However, the Bill's successful passage will have a symbolic importance beyond the significance of its individual provisions, as it will represent the first piece of antiquities legislation ever passed in this country.
The problem with treasure trove, of course, is that it was never intended as an antiquities law. As hon. Members will know by now, only objects made of gold or silver that have been deliberately buried with the intention of recovery and of which the owner is unknown fall within the scope of treasure trove.
There are four main shortcomings of treasure trove. First, many very important single finds that may have been lost rather than buried intentionally, such as the Middleham jewel, are excluded, and many assemblages that have been scattered by ploughing may also fail to qualify if there is no evidence of their having been buried together.
Secondly, the possibility that certain deposits, particularly from the iron age period, may be votive in nature has recently caused great confusion. Thirdly, the requirement that only objects that are substantially gold or silver can be treasure trove is also the cause of much confusion, and has led to many hoards being split, which is patently absurd. Finally, objects not made of precious metal that are found with items of treasure, such as pottery or engraved gemstones, are excluded.
The Bill attempts to deal with those problems in three ways. First, and most important, it will change the definition of treasure by removing the need to prove that objects must have been intentionally buried, by making it clear exactly how much gold or silver objects must contain in order to be treasure, and by including objects found in association with finds of treasure. Secondly, it will streamline the system of administration by making it much simpler to determine what is treasure, and by removing the need for coroners to summon juries to treasure inquests. Finally, it will make the law enforceable, by providing a new offence for the non-declaration of treasure.
The Bill will certainly not allow people to look for treasure in graves—a worry that was certainly expressed in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire will remember. Graves are fully protected by law, and licences are needed to open them. The point is simply that objects covered by the new law discovered at an unknown burial site will now qualify as treasure. It is also misleading to state that this Bill will encourage criminally minded finders rather than discourage them. The Bill will, in fact, make the law more enforceable by closing a number of loopholes in the present law.
Equally, however, innocent finders who fail to report treasure because they did not know that they should have done so—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—will not be penalised under the Bill. Clause 8 requires finders of treasure to report their finds within 14 days, but it also states that any person who has a "reasonable excuse" for failing to report his find to the coroner will have a defence against

prosecution for non-declaration. That will protect, for example, a farmer who discovers an object that subsequently turns out to be treasure while ploughing, or a workman who discovers an object while digging a trench and fails to report it because he did not realise that he should have done so.
The Bill also has great flexibility. Clause 2 contains a provision that gives the Secretary of State the power to add or remove categories of object from the definition of treasure set out in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said, that provision will make it possible to review the operation of the new system after a period, and to make such adjustments as might be found to be necessary without having to introduce primary legislation.
The Bill also provides safeguards against the arbitrary use of those powers by the Secretary of State, by stating that any change to the definition of treasure should be made by a statutory instrument that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by both Houses of Parliament.
The Government feel that the most encouraging sign for the future lies in the fact that, as I said, there appears to be a growing consensus among archaeologists and metal detectorists in favour of co-operation. I feel that my Department has an important role to play in fostering such a spirit of co-operation. A recently published book on metal detecting prominently displays the following message on its back cover:
This book promotes responsible behaviour among detectorists and advocates the recording and reporting of all finds.
That is from a book by Andrew Palmer, entitled "The Metal Detecting Book", which was published in 1995.
Equally, I believe that archaeologists are increasingly willing to acknowledge the contribution played by metal detectorists in bringing archaeological finds to light, and actively to seek their co-operation in excavations. Taken together, this Bill and the proposals in our discussion document on portable antiquities represent the best chance yet of securing improvements to the current arrangements for the acquisition and recording of portable antiquities, which we recognise are less than ideal.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire for his hard work on this important Bill, and thank Opposition Members for their support. I hope that it goes speedily through another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Railway Heritage Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

DESIGNATION OF RECORDS AND ARTEFACTS

Mr. Mark Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 30, at beginning insert
`Subject to subsection (4) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'(4) References in this section to records do not include references to records which are public records within the meaning of the Public Records Act 1958.'.

Mr. Robinson: I received representations to the effect that the Bill as drafted could lead to confusion if records with which it deals are already covered by the Public Records Act 1958. I gave notice in Committee that I would table these amendments on Report. Without them, there would be unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, which I am sure hon. Members would want to avoid and which could only lead to confusion.
I believe that public records are adequately protected without providing the Railway Heritage Committee with the power to designate them. I am pleased that the committee agrees with that proposition, and I urge the House to support the amendments, which are purely technical.

Mr. Michael Stern: Will my hon. Friend explain briefly the sort of records that would not be designated? I do not object to the amendments—he flagged the issue in Committee—but it would be helpful to have one or two examples of the type of record involved.

Mr. Robinson: We are talking about things that are a matter of public record and which are therefore classified as public records. There are a host of them, but I do not have a specific example in mind. The point is that the power to designate already exists, so to write that power into the Bill would simply provide two systems of designation whereas only one is needed.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The Government agree entirely with my hon. Friend and support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'(4) References in this section to records do not include references to records which are public records within the meaning of the Public Records Act 1958.'.—[Mr. Mark Robinson.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I begin by thanking all those who have helped to bring the Bill to Third Reading. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads for his support and advice. He has explained why he is unable to be here this afternoon, but the Government are well represented by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, whose Department has an interest in the Bill.
It is also appropriate to mention Sir Gordon Higginson, the chairman of the Railway Heritage Committee, his colleagues on that committee, and the British Railways Board, because they, too, have been instrumental in supporting the Bill. Indeed, the Bill's success in progressing towards the statute book required all-party consensus, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Standing Committee and who brought with them a wide range of specialist interest in, and knowledge of, our railways.
My task was not as difficult as that described by F. S. Williams, a Nottinghamshire clergyman, in his book entitled "Our Iron Roads", which was published in the 1870s and republished 100 years later. In it, he describes the tortuous business of getting on the statute book legislation necessary to build our railways, a process that has been reflected in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. My Bill has had a relatively smooth passage, for which I am grateful. I know that people interested in the railways are equally appreciative.
I shall deal now with the substance of the Bill. It will ensure that railway artefacts and records of historic interest continue to be preserved for posterity. It will strengthen the position of the Railway Heritage Committee, which was set up under the Railways Act 1993, by bringing items now in the private sector back within its remit. Previous legislation had been confined to public sector bodies, which would be virtually meaningless post privatisation.
There has for a long time been all-party support for the aim of preserving the railway heritage of the nation. Section 144 of the Transport Act 1968 transferred responsibility for the British Railways Board's historical artefacts and certain of its records to the Department of Education and Science. In 1975, the national railway museum was established in York. I am sure that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Minister would wish to join me in praising the excellent work that the museum has done since then. Railway heritage was taken into account in the Railways Act 1993. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for York for his support during my work on the Bill.
Section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 extended the protection of railway artefacts and records to those owned by the new public sector bodies set up under that Act. Under that section, the Railway Heritage Committee was created in 1994, with the functions of designating artefacts and records as worthy of preservation and ensuring that they went to the appropriate collecting institutions at the end of their working lives. The committee is composed of highly respected figures in the working railway and railway heritage communities, and is chaired by the former vice-chancellor of the University of Southampton, Sir Gordon Higginson. It has already undertaken some worthwhile work, to which I pay tribute.
The committee has designated more than 7,000 engineering drawings from the Brunel era, many of which bear the signature of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. That is particularly gratifying to me, because I was born in Bristol and spent much of my childhood there. IKB is therefore a part of my culture. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is in the Chamber, as he and I are aware of the tremendous contribution that Brunel made to the history of that great city. In addition, I am glad that Bristol is once again governed as a city and is no longer burdened with the county of Avon. Perhaps that is a little outside the remit of the Bill.
I have been asked to give examples of items that might be designated for preservation. They include working drawings, including drawings of stations or rolling stock; publications such as rulebooks, timetables or instruction manuals; paintings of railway subjects; posters and publicity material; small artefacts marked with the monogram of the owning company, such as crockery and furniture; and items of signalling equipment, such as block instruments, signal repeaters or early electro-mechanical relays. Larger items, such as signals, lever frames and even a complete signal box could also be included. I have been told that, because it is able to be dismantled, the Forth rail bridge might be included as an artefact. Some track components, such as rail supports, chairs or point-blocking mechanisms, and of course our much treasured and valuable rolling stock, might also be designated.
The designations will not be confined to historic items; modern items such as solid state interlocking signalling systems, which have been developed in Britain and are now exported worldwide, are also worthy of consideration. Another example might be the high-speed diesel train, the InterCity 125, used on the great western line, the midland main line, the north Wales line and some cross-country services. The class 158 diesel train used on the Bristol, Frome, Yeovil and Weymouth line may also be included. That line commands great affection from my constituents in Frome, and the rail users group in Frome is anxious that it should continue to operate successfully. I am glad that it has been included in the franchising director's timetabling proposals.
The powers of the Railway Heritage Committee would be under threat without this Bill. As companies pass into the private sector, their historic records and artefacts cease to be covered by the committee's powers. As the flotation of Railtrack will soon be upon us—Railtrack is one of the principal owners of railway records—this is a matter of pressing concern. The problem was foreseen when the Railways Bill was in another place. Ministers undertook to cover the private sector through a voluntary scheme, but it was later found that that was not a workable option. That is why I am now promoting this Bill. It will ensure the protection of those artefacts and records which leave the protection of section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 as their owners are privatised.
The Bill deals with artefacts and records. There was considerable discussion in Committee about the precise meaning of "artefact" and whether it included buildings but, of course, buildings and permanent structures are protected by planning legislation. A good example of that is the grade I listed engine sheds at Bristol Temple Meads. Many hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for West

Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), will be aware of the Railway Heritage Trust's excellent work in funding and carrying out preservation work on those engine sheds.
There is an issue concerning buildings. In Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East raised the matter of lottery funding for railway buildings, which is also a matter of some concern to me. A large number of railway buildings and structures of heritage interest will pass into private sector ownership when Railtrack is floated. The buildings are highly diverse. They range from Brunel's train sheds at Bristol to the Birmingham New Street signal box. Whatever hon. Members' views on the desirability of preserving individual buildings—on which there has often been lively debate—it will be in the public interest as much after privatisation as before that those buildings should be conserved for future generations. However, their eligibility for funding from the national heritage memorial fund will end at flotation. That is clearly undesirable.
A number of exciting railway heritage projects could also benefit from lottery funding, but they fall outside the categories of project which may attract such funding. They include plans to set up a national railway archive. That would not necessarily be done by putting all important railway records together under one roof. It could be done by creating several regional centres. Visitors to any centre would be able to access documents held at other centres through computer links. That would be of great help and benefit to railway historians, and it could be of considerable educational benefit.

Mr. Stern: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I am sure that he will be aware of an exact example of what he is talking about in the application before the national heritage memorial fund for funding for a museum of the empire in the Brunel engine sheds at Temple Meads. Does he agree that that could be of great educational value outside the railway context, and should be encouraged? I am most grateful to him that the Bill will encourage that.

Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I agree with him and support that very concept. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have listened to his words carefully.
Another problem is the drawings from the Brunel era. For their restoration to be eligible for lottery funding, the drawings need to be placed in a trust. That would make it difficult for Railtrack to obtain access to them. Although many of the drawings are in a fragile state, they are still working drawings and, as such, Railtrack is under a statutory obligation to provide copies on request to those responsible for track maintenance. As they are of considerable historical importance to the nation, it is surely not right that they should be ruled out of lottery funding on a technicality of ownership. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, on the possibility of extending the criteria for eligibility for lottery funding.
The Bill will extend the protection currently afforded to records and artefacts owned by publicly owned railway companies under the Railways Act 1993 to similar items owned by the bodies that will inherit, or have already inherited, the British Railways Board's assets under the restructuring of the railways industry as a consequence of that Act.
As well as extending the class of owners to be covered by the heritage regime, the Bill makes several other improvements to existing legislation. It provides for the Railway Heritage Committee to delegate its functions to sub-committees and requires owners to furnish it with information relevant to its functions. Those changes will help it to carry on its work more quickly and effectively. Extension to private sector owners introduces several complications, but I am pleased to be able to say that they have been fully tackled in the Bill. Section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 was designed to facilitate consensual arrangements between public sector bodies. The advent of private sector owners necessitates the introduction of a clearer procedure to ensure fairness.
I shall briefly outline how the regime under the Bill would work in practice. When a body to which the Bill applies wished to dispose of a designated artefact or record, it would be required to notify the Railway Heritage Committee of the intended recipient and the terms of disposal. If the committee was unhappy with the intended recipient or the terms, it would be able to direct the owner of the item to offer it to a different person, or on different terms, or both. The owner could dispose of the item only with the committee's consent or under the terms directed by it, but the committee would need to make up its mind within six months, after which the owner could act freely. If the committee determined terms for the disposal, the person to whom the item was offered would have six months in which to act. Any disposals in respect of which the owner did not follow the committee's procedure would be void. That should act as a deterrent and reduce the likelihood of dishonest dealings. Criminal sanctions are not included in the Bill because they are inappropriate—another matter on which we touched in Committee.
The interests of the working railway need to be recognised in the heritage regime if it is to be effective. It is essential that the working railway should function in partnership with the railway heritage community, which is strong in Britain, in ensuring the preservation of historical railway artefacts and records for future generations. In my constituency, the East Somerset railway is an example of the enthusiasm of the railway heritage community. A proposal for the Somerset and Dorset Railway restoration between the towns of Radstock and Shepton Mallet, which runs through my constituency, is shortly due for consideration by the Millennium Commission. I certainly wish it well.
When an item is transferred from a private sector body to a collecting institution under the terms of a direction from the Railway Heritage Committee, the collecting institution pays market value compensation to that body. The committee would not be able to direct an owner to dispose of an item in a way different from that desired by the owner—for example, to direct him to sell when he wishes to lease or vice versa. For the further protection of owners, the committee would be required to give explicit consent to a disposal to which it does not object rather than airily waiting six months for its direction power to expire. Further, if it failed to notify owners that items in their possession had been designated, they would be free to dispose of them.
The Bill does not interfere with the day-to-day operation of the railway. It does not threaten working records and artefacts with compulsory transfer to museums. Transfers of equipment between owners covered by the Bill which, before April 1994, would have been internal British Rail transfers and disposals in accordance with transfer schemes under part II of the Railways Act 1993 would not require directions from the committee. Nor would the new regime prevent modifications to working railway artefacts or records which would extend or enhance their working lives. The paper on the committee's procedures that was circulated to members of the Standing Committee stressed that it was not the committee's view that working railway items of historical significance should be frozen on designation. They are of greater interest if they are modified in the same way as would have been the case had they not been so designated. In any event, the Bill does not give the committee any powers to restrict modifications to designated items.
I should add that I am grateful that the successor companies to British Rail have not objected to the Bill. Indeed, they have shown their support because they are represented on the Railway Heritage Committee.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to give the Railway Heritage Committee guidance. Outline guidance, setting out compensation and dispute resolution arrangements and advising on the wording of directions, was circulated to members of the Standing Committee.
The Bill enjoys wide support in the railway industry and in railway heritage communities in my constituency and the country at large. I have been delighted not merely by the support that it has received, but because it received an unopposed Second Reading and has not been amended except by today's technical amendment. This is a Bill that hon. Members on both sides of the House can support, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the Bill, as I was sorry to miss the Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) mentioned one qualification that I have for being interested in the subject—any hon. Member representing the Bristol region would be, because of the wealth of railway history and railway excellence there.
There are two other qualifications. First, several tributes have been paid during the passage of the Bill to the work done for railway heritage by the late and much lamented Robert Adley. His first seat was Bristol, North-East. On a boundary change, I inherited part of my constituency from that seat, so I can claim with great pleasure that, in speaking today for that constituency, I am in a small way carrying on the tradition.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned Robert Adley, who was a good friend of mine. Indeed, I campaigned for him in Bristol many years ago. I mentioned his contribution on Second Reading. It is a coincidence perhaps, but his widow Jane now lives in my constituency and I know that she will be as delighted about the Bill as anyone.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The other qualification is that I have the almost unique distinction in the House of representing a constituency in which fresh track has recently been laid and a fresh station built. That is sufficiently rare in the recent history of our railways, so it is worth putting on record that, with the strong support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, Filton Abbey Wood station was built and opened in record time within the past few months. Fresh track had to be laid to it, and it is already up and running as part of the local railway network. That is something on which the railway industry should meditate.
The heritage to which the Bill refers does not merely go back to the original foundation of the railway. Railway heritage is not just about Brunel and the great engineers who worked around him. It is also about the continuing history of a developing industry. Indeed, that development has accelerated. Future historians of the railway will study and admire the expansion that has taken place—so far in a very modest way—and which will be encouraged by recent events, for it is as much a part of that heritage as the sheds at Bristol Temple Meads.

Mr. Robinson: When we first discussed the Bill, we debated whether it should be confined to historic records. That is why we drafted it to ensure that modern records would be included. Our railways are developing under our very eyes, which delights me. The other day, I read about a new steam engine—being developed in Switzerland—that is supposed to be more environmentally friendly than the present diesel and electric engines.

Mr. Stern: I remind my hon. Friend that development is not all one way. Recently, an experimental engine caught fire at Bristol Parkway station in my constituency. However, he is right: development is continuing.
The Bill will be useful in preserving not only our historic heritage—since the great days of iron—but our modern heritage. It will enable people to track the progress of the industry. I do not wish to challenge the Labour party in this regard because I am aware that the Bill has proceeded with all-party support and I do not want to upset that, but I shall refer to the privatisation process—something that I fully support.
Since being elected to this place in 1983, I have been a regular traveller on British Rail between London and Bristol. It has been a source of considerable regret to me that, over that period the train trip has got slower and the timetable has accommodated the increasing slowness of the trains. Between 1983 and 1996, the minimum journey time between London and Bristol Parkway has increased by one third—which is quite a lot. When I was first elected, the fastest train between London and Bristol Parkway took 59 minutes; until recently, the fastest train took one hour and 20 minutes.
I was therefore somewhat surprised when I received a letter from a constituent who asked me to deplore the fact that train travel times have increased by 15 minutes between London and Bristol Parkway since privatisation. I looked up my previous correspondence with the constituent and discovered that he has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is an active member of the Labour party. The reverse is actually the case: at that stage, there had been no change in the timetable since privatisation.
Recently, I was particularly delighted to receive a timetable from the newly privatised Great Western. For the first time since I have been a Member of Parliament—

and, I believe, longer than that—the times of trains, and achieved times of trains, between London and Bristol have come down. New and more convenient trains have been timetabled and, for the first time in my memory, the journey time has been reduced. That is not the only thing that has been achieved in this area. Shortly after privatisation, Great Western announced considerably improved conditions and pay for the staff of the newly franchised railway. For the first time in my memory, improved conditions were achieved without a strike.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome to contact the Railway Heritage Committee to ensure that we adequately preserve records, on paper, of what British Rail was achieving before privatisation—I refer to timetables, rule books and wage structures. We will then see the progress that has started with Great Western—and that will continue. We will rebuild the sort of railway that many of us believe is possible.

Mr. Robinson: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have a funny feeling that a member of the Railway Heritage Committee may be listening to him right now.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend has referred to the improved wage structures that have been introduced post franchise, post privatisation. To what extent have they been reported in local or other newspapers so that people are aware of them?

Mr. Stern: I regret that good news about the railways rarely achieves reported status. I should like to pay tribute to one of my local newspapers, however, the "Northavon Gazette", which has reported in full my comments about the improved wage structures and timetables. Nevertheless, the problem is that, after the barrage—some may say farrago—of publicity about the privatisation process, many people are still finding it difficult to believe that we are moving into an era of improved railway services for passengers and staff. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to hammer away on those improvements to ensure that people understand the direction in which the industry is going.
That neatly brings me to my second point. As a result of boundary changes, a new area, Patchway, will be added to the Bristol, North-West constituency at the next general election. As I hope to continue to represent the constituency then, I have considered some of the problems associated with the area. I have discovered that it has its own railway station on a branch line, but that that branch line has suffered a long history of neglect in terms of the effects of timetabling. When I queried the successor to British Rail how the pattern of services has changed in recent years to accommodate local demand, I was somewhat surprised to find that, but for a couple of years back, no timetables were readily available to enable the current management to compare the services it is now offering with those on offer a few years ago. That is deplorable.
How can we expect ordinary people, parish councils and district councils to play the part open to them to help the railways to improve their service unless full, accurate


records are available of what was previously provided as a supposedly adequate service? They could then make a comparison. That is my second reason for welcoming my hon. Friend's Bill. I hope that it will enable students of the railway and people with an interest in the railway as a service to the public to chart progress by reference to detailed timetables and detailed usage patterns. With such information, people will be able to persuade the future, more modern management of the railway of the public demand for services, including the reintroduction of those that were once on offer. For that reason, I thoroughly commend my hon. Friend's Bill to the House.

Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on taking the Bill thus far through Parliament. The piloting of a Private Member's Bill is made to look easy when it is done with such elegance and neatness as that displayed by my hon. Friend, but it is extremely complicated. I congratulate him on his mastery of a complex subject and on taking a necessary Bill through the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) mentioned the late Robert Adley, who was a real character in the House and who certainly knew more about the railways than anyone this side of the British Railways Board. I was glad to hear that his wife, Jane, whom I have also met, is now living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West mentioned the concept of the museum of the British empire in Bristol. It is a tremendous idea. The British empire and railways go together naturally. Not only will the empire museum be housed, if all goes well, in the old Brunel sheds, but one can hardly go anywhere in the third world or what used to be the British empire without finding old railways built in 1925 and still going strong, or old station hotels, such as that in Kuala Lumpur, resonant with imperial echoes. We now return to the Bill.
I am deputising for the Minister of State, Department of Transport. I am pleased to do so. He is an exceptionally good Minister, who has done me a good turn on a matter in which you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have a common interest—the Wakefield mining museum, for which he has agreed a signpost.
I have a personal interest in this matter, because one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Harwich was the first person ever to be killed by a railway train, before which he was carelessly walking with a red flag when the railway was being opened—Mr. William Huskisson.
I find myself with a rather more personal interest in the Bill than I had first expected. As a boy, I used to hold out the hoop at railway stations. Hon. Members may remember that one put one's hand through the hoop and the driver caught it. I went out of my way to collect the hoop in the old metal tablet.
It is especially on behalf of the Department of National Heritage that I am grateful to be here because, as the Minister responsible for the national railway museum, I am pleased to speak for a measure that will ensure that the museum remains a haven of excellence and international repute in the conservation of railway heritage.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome about the museum's work. In addition to the splendour of Queen Adelaide's coach, built in 1842, and the famous Mallard—I often saw it as a boy, and travelled in the train pulled by the old streamliner—which held the world steam record, there are many fascinating engineering drawings and artefacts, such as station plates.
One of the difficult aspects of working at the Department of National Heritage is that some people assume that heritage is a dry matter, concerned with the past and not remotely concerned with the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West correctly said that that is very far from the case, and indicated a few ways in which we should be keeping up with artefacts, as it were, that are being created today that would be valuable in future.
There are few areas in which the misconception of dry and dusty matter is more of a misconception than railway heritage. Historic railway records can be surprisingly relevant to the running of the railway today. I understand that the Brunel era drawings, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome alluded, are still used as working drawings. I also noted the extraordinary story in The Times saying that steam engines are more environmentally friendly than diesel. That shows that there is more than heritage interest in what my hon. Friend proposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the lottery and the national heritage memorial fund. Of course the scope of the Bill does not extend to increasing the criteria on the basis of which lottery funding can be delivered, but my Department does intend, at a suitable opportunity and as soon as possible, to introduce legislation to extend the powers of the national heritage memorial fund regarding the lottery to make a wider range of projects and recipients eligible. That could encompass those to which my hon. Friend alluded.
I wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in applauding the work of the Railway Heritage Committee. It is an independent committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Higginson, and consists of other eminent persons from the Railway Heritage Movement and the railway industry. It was set up under the Railways Act 1993 to ensure that railway artefacts and records of historic significance go to the appropriate collecting institution at the end of their useful lives and become available to a wider public. In addition to the designations that my hon. Friend mentioned, I understand that the Railway Heritage Committee has done much work on setting criteria for future designations and directions, which have been pored over in Committee.
The committee's powers under the 1993 Act extended to the British Railways Board and the new public sector bodies that were to be created under the restructuring process. Now many of the board's successors are entering the private sector and so leaving the scope of existing provisions, which necessitates new arrangements.
The committee as a whole, and its members as individuals, welcome the Bill. I understand that they have been consulted and their views carefully considered throughout the drafting process. In particular, the head of the national railway museum, Mr. Andrew Scott, who is a member of the committee, strongly welcomes the


provisions in the Bill as they will help to ensure that the museum's leading role in the preservation of important historical railway material will continue.
I am pleased that the Bill recognises the need to balance the interests of the railway heritage community and the railway industry. That should enable all parties to work co-operatively to ensure that primary sources for future historians are not lost.
As my hon. Friend has noted, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the committee. I am sure that it would be helpful to the House if I explained the purpose of the guidance. Private sector owners of designated records and artefacts must have a right to compensation at market value if the committee directs disposal of those items. It is quite likely that, in many cases, the owners will waive that right in the interests of their public image, but they must have that right.
On the other hand, the British Railways Board is happy to continue to transfer records and artefacts to the national railway museum, the Public Record Office, the Scottish Record Office and other collecting institutions free or for a nominal charge.
It would be wrong to obstruct that mutually beneficial arrangement between the board and the collecting institutions, but as hon. Members will be aware we could hardly make one provision for the public sector and another for the private sector in the Bill. The guidance will deal with that problem.
Hon. Members may be wondering how the market value compensation for private sector owners will be calculated. That will be done by agreement between the owner and the collecting institution. Of course, there will be disagreements from time to time. The outline guidance provides for recourse to arbitration in that event. If the parties failed to agree on an arbiter, the president of the Institute of Arbiters will be asked to choose one. The guidance will also assist the committee in drafting directions.
I must stress that we have absolutely no intention of undermining the committee's independence by giving guidance on designation or direction criteria, or on particular designations or directions. Even if the Secretary of State were to give such guidance, the committee would merely be obliged to have regard to it, not to follow it. I can confirm that the guidance will be published and that copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
I believe that my hon. Friend's Bill will help significantly in the preservation of railway artefacts and records and so will benefit railway industry and railway heritage interests and the public. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Energy Conservation Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am pleased to have brought the Bill to its Report and Third Reading. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sponsored and supported the Bill. I thank the Minister, his civil servants and the staff of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which has been instrumental in bringing not only this Bill before the House, but the Home Energy Conservation Bill—now an Act—last year.
In many ways this Bill shares the same objectives as the Home Energy Conservation Act. It fills an important omission in that Act which we did not realise existed at the time. I shall briefly remind the House of the shared objectives. The first is to try to make inroads into the backlog of fuel poverty that existed in the United Kingdom. It is now clearly recognised that, as a nation, we incur more than £1 billion of wasted energy bills through fuel-inefficient housing. It affects some 2.5 million households and claims 50,000 avoidable winter deaths from fuel poverty.
The second objective relates to the impact on the health of those who do not die, but continue to live in fuel-inefficient housing. Newark and Sherwood local authority, which is regarded as one of the pioneers in this respect, has carried out a survey of what, over 20 years, an energy conservation programme would mean in terms of other associated local health costs. It estimates that it would save about £4 million in reduced local health service costs.
The third objective of a serious and comprehensive energy conservation programme, which would be welcome in the House and the country, is to tackle atmospheric pollution. We know already that carbon dioxide emissions from domestic properties amount to 25 per cent. of the country's total emissions, nitrous oxide emissions amount to 14 per cent. and sulphur dioxide emissions account for almost 30 per cent. of total emissions. Making inroads into reducing those emissions would make important contributions on a wider scale to the Government's energy conservation programme. All those objectives are entirely laudable, and I hope do not divide the House in any way.
The problem with last year's Act was that, after it had passed all its stages, we discovered that there was a serious omission: it fails to include in the responsibilities given to local authorities a responsibility to monitor houses in multiple occupation. To put that in context, the Department of the Environment issued a press release in November which pointed out that there were 638,000 houses in multiple occupation in England alone. If one adds to that the number of similar properties in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, one gets some idea of the proportion of properties in which some of the most serious inroads need to be made to raise standards of energy efficiency.
The omission in last year's Act left local authorities in a strange position. Not only did we give them no direct mandate to produce reports as part of their energy


efficiency monitoring schemes, we may well have left them in a position where to do so would have been ultra vires. The Bill's main intention is to try to close that gap and give local authorities a specific remit to monitor houses in multiple occupation and be able to issue separate reports that might specifically address the conditions in such properties.
I am sure that most hon. Members, as well as large sections of the population, are aware that the most serious examples of fuel inefficiency are found in houses in multiple occupation. We are talking not about respectable hotels but many properties that count among the most undesirable, which have been poorly converted, packed with many households to make whatever money possible and which are certainly not energy efficient houses that reduce the fuel bills of the poor.
The Bill will not pursue the completion of an energy savings scheme; it is about making a start and finding a basis on which we can begin as a society to take energy saving more seriously. I remember being told that if one wants to change a situation, one must first understand it. The Bill is about an understanding and a monitoring of conditions in houses in multiple occupation.
If the Bill's monitoring and reports come back to the House and assist us either nationally or locally in pursuing energy conservation measures that raise the standards of energy efficiency in our homes, it will have all sorts of additional practical benefits.
One benefit is the creation of jobs. The Association for the Conservation of Energy calculates that, if we as a society were serious about raising the standards of home energy efficiency, over 15 years we could generate 500,000 job years, reducing pollution, reducing energy bills and improving our health in the process. I am sure that every hon. Member subscribes to those objectives.
I hope that by passing the Bill, the House will give a clear message. The measure is welcomed and wanted by local authorities. I hope that it will have the full endorsement not only of the House, but of the public as a whole. I am pleased to commend the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and his Energy Conservation Bill. I intend to speak briefly, not least because I support the Journalistic Corrupt Practices Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), and I would not want to deprive him of the opportunity to make the case for his Bill, about which I am also enthusiastic.
I am, of course, aware that the Energy Conservation Bill would extend the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 to houses in multiple occupation. I do not intend to add anything to the remarks made, clearly and concisely, by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. However, I can say, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, that the Bill will provide benefits in our constituencies. In Norwich, North, there are many houses in multiple occupation of the type that have just been described. Clearly, the Bill is right and it is good that it has all-party

support. I am obviously delighted that it has the support of the Government in the form of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
My reason for being here is not just that I happen to be free from constituency engagements this Friday, but because of my commitment over the years to energy conservation measures. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South will agree that there is a long history of energy conservation Bills. Although I have been involved in many of them, signed early-day motions, spoken on Second Reading and so on, I find that, over 12 or 13 years, I have become quite confused about which measure was which. However, there is a definite history of such Bills and I have always tried to support them in terms of the principle of energy conservation.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South will be aware—I hope that this is not a controversial point—many of the Bills have fallen at one hurdle or another. One Bill was about the reduction of VAT on building products and as I understand it—I have not studied the matter in great detail—the problem was the European Community. Far be it from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to introduce European issues at this stage. However, there were snags and that is why this Bill is not the same as the Energy-Saving Materials (Rates of Value Added Tax) Bill, which the hon. Gentleman introduced in the previous Session.
Other energy conservation Bills have fallen because of their sheer cost, as the Government understand it. I think that I am right in saying that there was a problem about the sheer cost of the energy audit that local authorities were required to carry out under some of the previous Bills. I am therefore delighted that the Government support this Bill, which is very good news.
My enthusiasm for energy conservation stems partly from my background as a physicist. Anyone who has studied and taught physics for 23 years is hardly likely not to think about the conservation of energy all the time. Whenever the subject comes up, I leap up to say something about it. The whole question of energy efficiency and energy conservation must be on the Government's mind all the time. If my hon. Friend the Minister is not already enthusiastic about the subject, I hope that he and his ministerial colleagues will become ever more enthusiastic about it, because it is important for two reasons.
The first reason, which has already been explained by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, is the difficulty people have in paying for energy costs. In my constituency, many people have difficulty in paying their energy bills. The issue comes before the House on and off, when we debate cold weather payments, VAT on fuel, standing charges, fuel bills and so on. We all get correspondence on those subjects. So if by improving energy efficiency and encouraging better projects for insulating homes we can help people pay their energy bills, that must be worth while.
I shall not speak at length on that subject, but it is one reason why I have tried hard to support the energy conservation measures that come before us. In my constituency, I have supported initiatives such as the home energy efficiency scheme. No doubt many other hon. Members have done the same. I seem to remember putting on a cap and a suitable overall to hammer in bits of insulation alongside doors and windows, and having


my photograph in the local paper to record the occasion. Such initiatives are good. We have all been involved in them, and we want to continue to encourage them.
Another reason why I support such measures so strongly, including the Bill before us, although it is a detailed technical measure, is the overriding issue that must be important to a scientist—global warming. Hon. Members who have introduced energy conservation measures in the House or who, in the case of the Government, have supported such measures and produced their own initiatives, have always had those important questions in the back of their mind.
In my city of Norwich, we have the university of East Anglia, which has a worldwide reputation for studying subjects such as global warming, the possible rise in sea levels, climatic change, pollution and other such important issues. If any of the energy conservation measures can help to reduce carbon dioxide levels and diminish climate change and global warming, it must be worthy of debate.
In the days before the Jopling reforms, we used to debate such matters in the early hours of the morning. I remember having a one-and-a-half-hour debate on global warming in one of the Consolidated Fund debates, but that has all changed now. None the less, all power to the elbow of those who support energy conservation and efficiency. I am delighted to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. His initiative needs no further commendation of mine.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am pleased to be able to welcome the Bill. It is a worthwhile measure, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has performed a service in using it to deal with energy efficiency in houses in multiple occupation. For the reasons that he explained, the Bill represents an important addition to last year's legislation.
Having recently served on the Committee on the Housing Bill, which spent some time talking about houses in multiple occupation, I was struck both in the debates on the Bill and in reading the representations that I received earlier from local authorities, by the number of houses in multiple occupation in this country, and by the number of people for whom they provide homes. The hon. Gentleman said that there were 638,000 such properties, and I agree that that is the size of the sector. Such houses provide homes for many of our fellow citizens so, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, it is entirely appropriate that energy conservation should be extended to them.
I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having used the opportunity to promote the issue. I also appreciate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), especially on two scores. First, I was impressed by the fact that my hon. Friend managed to bring Europe into the debate. Europe seems to be a ubiquitous topic at the moment. Earlier today I addressed the House on the subject of the Noise Bill, and I found that Europe reared its head then, too. We had to debate whether noise could cross European boundaries, and there were calls for a European policy, although I am not sure whether those were entirely serious. And here Europe is, cropping up again.
The important things that my hon. Friend said were about his enthusiasm for energy conservation. I can certainly offer him the Government's wholehearted commitment to and enthusiasm for energy conservation and measures to promote it, both in the domestic sector and more widely among businesses and other energy users. It is a very important subject.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, perhaps modestly, he was able to speak from the position of someone who has scientific experience. He knows of the important linkages between energy conservation and environmental benefits, and he is familiar with the important issues of climate change and emissions.
It is important to make the straightforward linkage, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South made, between energy conservation and the environment, and between energy conservation and financial benefits. We are concerned about financial benefits for householders, of course, but we are also concerned about financial benefits for businesses.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that, although I cannot match his expertise on the subject, I certainly share his enthusiasm for it. The Government have a wide-ranging programme to promote energy efficiency and energy conservation in the domestic and business sectors, and he will be particularly pleased to learn—if he does not already know—that the Government have recently launched a pack to bring the subject to schoolchildren's attention, helping to educate them on the importance of energy conservation and the links between energy conservation and environmental change. It is an important subject, and he is entirely right to insist on the need for enthusiasm and the need to look to the future.
This is worthwhile measure. I welcome it for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Journalistic Corrupt Practices Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I was delighted, when I introduced my Bill under the ten-minute rule a few weeks ago, that the House agreed to allow it to proceed to a Second Reading. I am very pleased to take it to a further stage.
My Bill is not a privacy Bill, although I disguise from no one the fact that, since I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1987, I have been sympathetic to measures taken by hon. Members on both sides of the House to introduce a privacy Bill. An inherent part of the concept of a free society is that people should be able to enjoy an element of genuine privacy in their private lives and that there should be a sphere that is protected from unwanted intrusion from the media and from outsiders.
My Bill has two purposes. The first is to make it an offence for media representatives to purchase private information relating to third parties—to corrupt acquaintances, friends, employers, employees, tenants or other potential informants—when there is no public interest, as defined in the Bill, and to publish that information.
My Bill's second purpose, which is of course linked to its first, relates to a corrupt and undesirable practice. My Bill would make it a criminal offence to reach financial arrangements with witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal trials. It would be an aggravated offence to reach financial arrangements with witnesses in criminal trials when those arrangements were contingent on a guilty verdict being returned.
There is surely no way in which a witness can be genuinely objective in the witness box—therefore, justice cannot be done—if that witness knows that the consequence of his evidence or the evidence given by other witnesses, who may also have been corrupted, might be a guilty verdict, so he stands to make a substantial amount of money. We know that the amount of money that has passed in some cases—such as the West case, in which this phenomenon has arisen—has been in substantial multiples of tens of thousands of pounds.
In those circumstances, it is not possible for a witness to put out of his mind the enormous financial consequences of the verdict that will be returned. Therefore, the witness cannot possibly be genuinely objective in his or her evidence.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I realise that time is short, but the Chamber is nearly empty. Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern—certainly among my constituents and, I suspect, among the public as a whole—about the lowering of standards in the tabloid newspapers in recent years? Does he realise how much anger and potential support there is for his proposals?

Mr. Davies: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of support. I received scores of letters from the public at large, not only from my constituents, when I introduced the Bill. I do not recall receiving any

letters opposing my initiative, although I did have one or two slightly angry conversations with editors of tabloid newspapers. One of them took place at a private reception and it would be invidious to mention the editor's name, although he is a well-known figure. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his testimony to the support that my initiative has—for good reason, I believe—encountered.
As my hon. Friend points out, a debate on the boundary between liberty and licence in a free society has been opened by the tabloid press in the past few years. I have not always lived in a free society, as I lived in Moscow for three years as second secretary at the British embassy there. That was 20 years ago, at the height of the Brezhnev regime. It was anything but a free society, but I had the good luck to have diplomatic immunity and was spared some of the more obvious threats that the ordinary Soviet man or woman would have faced had he or she displayed any political independence or freedom of thought.
Nevertheless, even as a British diplomat, for three years I got used to knowing that I would be followed everywhere I went, in a car if I was in a car or by several people if I was on foot. Indeed, if I was on foot, I would be followed by several people. I was followed to every restaurant table at which I might sit, and I knew that every hotel room and every flat that I visited would be bugged. It became second nature, but I took it for granted that, when I came back to this country, I would no longer be subject to such a regime.
I was recently reminded, forcibly and uncomfortably, of my days in the Soviet Union, as it then was, when I read in the tabloids about one of our colleagues who was apparently followed by employees of the Daily Mirror. He was followed from the House to his home, from his home to an airport, from the airport to a hotel and from the hotel to the beach. Photographs were surreptitiously taken of him, of the bedroom in which he stayed and of the person with him, who was in no sense a public figure and certainly did not deserve to have her name or face dragged into the story, but there is no protection against that.
I understand that the Government are favourably considering legislating against stalking. We believe that stalking is a way of one individual harassing another in a manner that is inconsistent with the dignity, freedom and independence that all individuals should enjoy in a free society. However, no one so far seems to have thought it at all unreasonable that individuals should be harassed by the tabloid press.
At issue is not only the harassment itself, but—this is the point of the Bill—the methods used to obtain information for sensational articles. Those methods extend beyond surveillance—there have been cases of individuals, including Members of Parliament, having their telephone bugged, of documents being purloined and of people being corrupted. There have been extremely unpleasant instances of people making enormous sums of money by selling stories to the tabloids, about how they allegedly slept with so and so, or by providing other sensational information about someone's medical, sexual or emotional history.
That is not only degrading, but poses exactly the same threat to the liberty of the subject as the activities of the secret police, activities that we supposed were associated with totalitarian societies.
The habit of corruption is dangerous, not only because it is unacceptable when the objective is to find out personal information with a view to making money by its publication, but because it is only a small step—a step that will become almost imperceptible when one is offering to corrupt people on the scale that the tabloid press regularly does—to inventing the information. A colleague in the House—this has undoubtedly happened also to many private citizens—was inveigled into a situation that otherwise would not have arisen, as a result of somebody who was receiving a large amount of money from the tabloid press.
I have a copy of the latest report of the Press Complaints Commission, from the first quarter of this year. It deals with the complaint of Miss Selina Scott against the News of the World. It is clear that that newspaper was prepared to pay someone to allege that he had had a sexual relationship with Miss Scott, when there was clearly no truth in the allegation. The man concerned was a weird misfit who had a passing acquaintance with Miss Scott, who had been nice enough, unfortunately, to write to congratulate him on his engagement. On the basis of that letter and no other evidence, the man was able to make a large amount of money by selling an entirely untrue and spurious story.
Such allegations are now the daily stuff which certain sections of Fleet street, or should I say Wapping, live off. We should not allow the situation to continue. There must be a proper balance between the liberty of the subject and the freedom of expression of the press, a freedom that we all want the fourth estate to continue to enjoy.
If the balance is not struck naturally as a result of sensible and responsible behaviour by all citizens—including those who run the tabloid press—and if those who run the tabloid press feel that there is no countervailing pressure on them to decide against the commercial inducement to produce ever-more sensational stories to increase their readership and market share, it must be for the House to establish where the proper balance should lie. The House must establish clear rules of the game, and it is more than time that we considered doing exactly that.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on raising this subject. My congratulations are tempered only by the thought that we simply do not have enough time on this occasion to air the subject to

the extent that it deserves, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend—and perhaps the Government—will find another opportunity to look at the matter. It is undoubtedly true that, if democracy is to flourish, there must be a balance between the rights of individuals to go about their lawful procedures and the right of the press to hound them to try to find out not only what they have done, but—as my hon. Friend mentioned in the dreadful case of Selina Scott—what they have not done.
With regard to the Selina Scott case, my hon. Friend did not mention something that struck me most forcibly. Not only was a false story printed against her, and not only was no proper checking done to ensure that the story was accurate, but when her complaint was upheld—as I understand it—she was told that, as she had not lost any money as a result of the story, nothing further could be done. It is as if Shakespeare had never written:
Who steals my purse, steals trash.
That was many hundreds of years ago, yet it still applies today.
An individual was defamed, although the allegations could have been looked at thoroughly. The man's character could have been shown by the fact that the letter purporting to be a love letter from Selina Scott was actually congratulating him on his engagement. One gasps that anyone should do such things and that there should be no remedy. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should examine such matters seriously. Such practices corrupt and degrade democracy and degrade individuals. It gives the press too much power if journalists believe that they can indulge in such practices and get away with it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will return to the subject and that we have a proper opportunity to debate the rights and wrongs of it. The press should be protected in doing what it ought to do, but it should not be allowed to get away with stories such as the ones about Selina Scott or about my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who has been subject in successive days to front-page attacks by the Daily Mirror, which followed him about in exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding said that the secret police did to him when he was in Moscow.
It is no defence to say that because it was done not for the secret police, but for a newspaper, such subterfuge, deceit and following of individuals can be justified.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 12 July.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

REGISTRATION OF DOMICILIARY CARE AGENCIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFORM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

STALKING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

Ms Janet Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell the House whether a request has been received to make a statement on the need to introduce a criminal offence of stalking? Now that the Government have objected to my Bill, the victims of stalking will have to wait at least another year to be put out of their misery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am not aware that any request has been made to make a statement.

SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (REGISTERS OF OFFENDERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 April].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Not moved.

DISABLED PERSONS (SERVICES, CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

REGULATION OF FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [19 April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 12 July.

REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [22 March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 12 July.

ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

HOSTAGE RECOVERY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members:: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

FREEZING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

TOBACCO (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND RESTRICTION OF PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRADING AND COMPETITION POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

CIVIL AVIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Colvin] — put and negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER thereupon declared that the Bill stood committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

HONG KONG (WAR WIVES AND WIDOWS) BILL

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Cyril D. Townsend]—put and negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER thereupon declared that the Bill stood committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,

That—

(1) at the sitting on Tuesday 14th May Standing Orders Nos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to Education; and
(2) at any one sitting of the House the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the civil service not later than three hours after their commencement or Seven o'clock, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Bates.]

United Nations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of Britain and the United Nations. This debate follows that which I was lucky enough to have the chance to initiate on 4 December 1992 on the UN, and several Adjournment debates on the then obscure subject of UN peacekeeping. I am chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group. 1 have always been proud of the United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the UN from its birth, and of our special place on the UN Security Council.
The United Kingdom is in a special and privileged position in the UN. It therefore behoves us from time to time to give a lead to that body. My theme this afternoon is that this is just such a time. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be replying to the debate, and the House will be looking for some pragmatic, well-considered Government proposals to tackle the many, various and well-known problems on which I shall briefly touch.
To be blunt, the United Nations is facing the greatest crisis in its 50-year history. I shall let Sir David Hannay, an outstanding former permanent ambassador to the UN, set the scene. He wrote recently:
The UN of 1997 will be in less good shape than it was at the beginning of the current five-year mandate in 1992. Gone the confidence and optimism exuded by the statement adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the members of the Security Council at their first ever summit-level meeting a month after Boutros-Ghali took office. Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda have taken the shine off the successes in Namibia, the Gulf, Cambodia and elsewhere. Tales of waste, duplication and incompetence in the Secretariat and UN agencies have undermined public support for the organisation.
I agree with those pertinent remarks, and I draw attention to the fact that it was the Government that set up the special Security Council meeting to consider for the first time at summit level how the UN should best proceed. The truth is that, at the end of this troubled and turbulent century, we need the UN, based on its widely praised charter, more than ever before.
At present, some 17 peacekeeping operations are under the auspices of the UN. National Governments blithely assume that the UN will be around to pick up the pieces after other attempts have failed. When NATO leaves Bosnia, or non-governmental organisations get kicked out of other countries, when chaos, anarchy, despair and degradation stalk the land, the cry will continue to go up for the UN to move in, take over and supply the instant solutions.
I should like the UN to be able to assume a greater importance in world affairs, to be given greater authority to prevent conflicts in places such as Burundi and Macedonia, to strengthen further human rights, in particular those of refugees, and to be better placed to struggle against suffocating poverty and the environmental destruction all around the globe.
I hope that the Minister will join me in celebrating the UN's many and often largely taken for granted successes. I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the success of the 50th anniversary celebrations—an event so well

organised by the United Nations Association in this country that I do not believe any other country did better—and recognise the Government's role in mobilising public support for an enhanced UN as we move into the 21st century.
Only through a thorough and sustained process of reform can the recent decline of UN standing be reversed. Following "An Agenda for Peace"—yes, I know it is the Minister's bedside reading—the Secretary-General has carried out a considerable measure of reform. There have been new appointments, and, as requested by the United States, there is now an office of internal oversight.
Every hon. Member will welcome the slimming down of the UN bureaucracy, while agreeing that there is more to be done. My hunch is that there are still too many committees and too much international bureaucracy and waste. When it comes to promotions, I should like greater emphasis to be placed on merit and less on nationality. The UN bureaucracy has improved, but it is still not up to the required standard. There may be scope for removing one UN agency altogether, but it would be foolish to talk of closing down several.
My attention has been drawn to a reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in the house. He said:
By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose."—[Official Report, 30 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 772.]
His predecessor was got at by Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to hold his own under any such pressures in the future.
Before the Secretary-General was first elected, he said that would carry on for only one term. He would be wise to keep to that, and he would set a good precedent. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister care to comment on that? Has he any ideas as to future candidates whom the British Government might want to back? Have we started discussing the matter with the European Union and within the Commonwealth?
The idea of a deputy has also been suggested. While the Secretary-General would continue to handle international crises—the high-wire act—and run the peacekeeping operations throughout the world, his deputy would be shaking up and slimming down the bureaucracy and working out the new priorities. In naval parlance, it is called running a tight ship. Does that idea have my right hon. Friend's support? It appears to have the Prime Minister's, if he wants any guidance on the matter.
At the heart of my remarks must be the serious financial crisis facing the UN. There have been a number of such crises before—I feel that I have been around that course more than once—but this time the situation seems extremely serious. There have been loud and clear warnings for many months, yet no proper action commensurate with the great size of the problem has been taken by the United Nations' 185 member states.
I cannot believe that the UN will be allowed to close its doors—if it did so, a new and similar international organisation would at once have to be constructed—yet it is now a fact that the UN could be completely out of cash by the end of this year.
The present financial crisis is crippling the United Nations and preventing it from carrying out essential tasks. Already, diplomatic initiatives for peace cannot


proceed, human rights monitors cannot be deployed, and vital emergency humanitarian efforts are being held up. This is tragic. What a way to run our world.
To keep the lights on, the UN's senior figures are putting aside important matters as they desperately try to raise funds. They are hindered by two basic problems: the UN has only puny financial reserves at the best of times, and it has not been permitted to borrow, even for a few weeks.
The Secretary-General has been forced to use money in the UN's peacekeeping budget to pay for its day-to-day running costs. What will happen if a large peacekeeping force is required urgently and totally unexpectedly? There must be the possibility of a small regional problem flaring up out of control because no peacekeeping force is dispatched at the crucial early stages.
Hon. Members know that the world's richest country—which, in my view, is wrongly and undeservedly the host to the UN headquarters—is pushing the UN to the brink of disaster. The United States of America gains massive benefits from the location of the UN in New York, but it owes the UN approximately $1.6 billion, and it is about to cut its contribution to peacekeeping from 31.5 per cent. to 25 per cent of the cost. That is disgraceful behaviour by a permanent member of the Security Council, which has more influence over the work of the UN than any other country.
According to the Global Policy Forum, an organisation located in New York, the current United States share of the regular UN budget—£321 million—is only one fiftieth of 1 per cent. of federal spending, and less than 1 per cent. of New York city's annual outlays. Important countries such as Russia and Ukraine have not paid their full dues because of their internal financial difficulties—but at least they are trying to catch up.
I turn to the European Union to take the initiative. The Minister is not as enthusiastic as I would like him to be for joint EU action in foreign policy. However, the EU countries—which contain two permanent members of the Security Council—should push forward their proposals for solving the crisis. Together, the EU countries pay more than half the funds received by the UN, and last year they strongly and correctly criticised America during the appropriate debate in the General Assembly. It is right that member countries that do not pay their contribution should not have a vote at the UN, as the Foreign Secretary has most effectively pointed out.
The European Union should appeal to all member states that have not yet fully paid their assessments to do so without delay. They should appeal to those countries that enjoy strong economies to make emergency payments to help existing UN debts. They should call for an emergency meeting of the General Assembly, and highlight the very real dangers to world peace and security if the UN is forced dramatically to curtail its activities.
I believe that 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. How will the Government celebrate the anniversary and help build on the declarations's achievements? Perhaps a committee along the lines of the 50th anniversary committee is called for, under a chairman with a legal background. What funding will be made available by the Foreign Office? Perhaps the Minister could write to me with his considered views on this topic in due course.
Conflict prevention is a key subject, and I have already made a passing reference to it. How can we give a higher priority to it in the future? There have been important advances that have saved lives, time and trouble later. I welcome the start that the international community has made in relation to war crimes. Over the long term, more alleged war criminals must be brought to justice, and clear standards of international behaviour must be established.
I have taken up much of the time of the House in Adjournment debates on the obvious need for Britain to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The Government have behaved badly, and there is widespread support in the House for our return to UNESCO. Our friends in the Commonwealth do not understand why we do not come back in and stand up for British interests and for their interests.
When we were a member, in any one year we earned more money for UNESCO than we put into it. We are letting down many British scientific, educational and cultural organisations. If we wish to remain on the Security Council, the universality rule is fundamental. Surely my right hon. Friend will accept that.
Qana is worthy of a special debate. I welcome the report on it, and congratulate the Secretary-General on its speedy production. In this country, we know that how long reports and inquiries can take. I find it appalling that the United States and Israel have been trying to keep that crucial report under wraps. UNIFIL is supported by the United Kingdom from our sovereign bases in Cyprus, and I hope that the Government will continue to take a robust line in support of that UN peacekeeping force.
On peacekeeping, we need better procedures to deal with the new world in which we will find ourselves in the next century, when I fear that there will be more civil wars. We will need to hold back before committing peacekeeping forces, and not spread the UN effort too thin.
Many years ago, I worked for Sir Hugh Foot, when he was the colonial governor of Cyprus. He wrote in his book "A Start in Freedom" some excellent words about the UN, with which I will finish:
I have always believed that the forces of conciliation are potentially stronger than those of conflict. The trouble is that the forces of hatred and conflict are so well organised and well led while the forces of conciliation are ill organised or ill led, or not organised or led at all. Now in the United Nations we have a permanent organisation for promoting international understanding and co-operation. It is this new initiative which gives us new hope in a divided world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for this opportunity to debate Britain and the United Nations.
I was honoured and pleased to be one of the United Nations Association's UN ambassadors in the United Nations 50th anniversary year. I am not so pleased to admit that that was because I was born in the same year as the United Nations. It was an extremely good year. In that connection, I was also pleased to represent the Government at the religious service organised by the UNA on 24 October to mark the 50th anniversary.
I was lucky to visit the UN headquarters at New York during the General Assembly in 1990. I should also like to pay tribute to my local UN association in Richmond and Twickenham, which does excellent work by informing local people of the hopes and values of the UN.
When King George V1 addressed the first UN General Assembly held in London in January 1946, he said that building the United Nations was "noble work". That sentiment remains as valid today as it was then. The international community needs the UN. It is the only international organisation with the legitimacy, mechanisms and resources capable of promoting a stable, secure and prosperous world. It represents the voice of the international community. The challenges it faces are many. But those voices that criticise the UN for the weaknesses common to all international bureaucracies would soon find out that, if we had no UN, we would need to invent it.
Without the UN, the burden on the world's super-powers would be immense. There is wide recognition that the UN needs to put its own house in order. That message came through loud and clear during last year's 50th anniversary year. There was much introspection and analysis of the UN's performance. But high-profile media attention focused too much on UN setbacks—from corruption in the World Health Organisation to failure in Somalia. The pendulum swung too far in the direction of pessimism.
The UN was not given credit for some real successes: for example, bringing peace to previously war-stricken countries, such as Mozambique, where UN peacekeepers helped demobilise 100,000 combatants; El Salvador; Cambodia, and now Angola, where the UN is overseeing the peace accords. The UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti has been an especially successful and unsung mission, with a major United States component under UN command.
Who knows of the small successful missions in Macedonia, or the force in 1994 in Chad overseeing the withdrawal of Libyan forces from the Aouzou strip? Who refers very often to the humanitarian efforts of the special representative of the Secretary-General in Burundi? They are helping to prevent instability from becoming genocide. I am pleased that that was mentioned at Question Time earlier this week, but I have not read much about it in the press.
The UN has done excellent, unsung humanitarian work through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It has been a motor for democracy, sustainable development and the rule of law. Its record on human rights has been outstanding in setting universal standards and in progressively canalising pressure from democracies and non-governmental organisations to address the problems of human rights violations where and when they occur.
Britain, for its part, remains wholeheartedly committed to the purposes and principles of the UN charter. We have been at the heart of the UN for the past 50 years. Britain helped to draft the UN charter, which has stood the test of time and remains a testament to the vision of the founding fathers. Britain hosted the first meetings of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council in London in 1946.
British forces have a long record of service with the UN, from Cyprus 30 years ago—where my hon. Friend served so well and gallantly—to Kuwait, Rwanda, Angola and Bosnia more recently. Britain can be proud of its contribution. From 1993 to 1995, we were one of the major UN troop contributors, and the UK has made strenuous efforts to find a long-term solutions to many of those problems.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, Britain is at the centre of decision making. Our permanent seat on the council gives us an important point of leverage in international affairs, and we bring a wealth of experience to the council.
We have contributed strongly in ideas and constructive proposals to the continuing process of United Nations reform, to which my hon. Friend referred. I agree with him that the United Nations' financial crisis is its greatest challenge. Its perennial cash flow problems result principally from the continued failure of some member states to fulfil their international treaty obligation to pay their assessed contributions to the UN promptly and in full.
My hon. Friend was robust in his criticism. We have consistently encouraged others to follow our example of full and prompt payment, and will continue to repeat those sentiments in all relevant forums and to all donors; but the long-term solution lies in reform of UN finances.
At the end of 1995, arrears to the UN had reached an unprecedented $2.3 billion. That was $500 million higher than a year earlier, and $800 million higher than two years earlier. Percentage payment by all member states had dropped to less than 93 per cent. of the amount assessed. The US rate of payment had dropped to 47 per cent.
In 1995, the UN cross-borrowed continually and extensively from peacekeeping operations to fund the regular budget. The level of borrowing and length of time that amounts were borrowed were unprecedented. Never before has the UN reached year end without repaying the amounts borrowed from peacekeeping operations. The consequent shortfall on peacekeeping budgets delayed reimbursement to those member states providing troops and equipment for peacekeeping operations. We are working with other member states to put a stop to that practice.
The UK has made strenuous efforts to help. It has also made strenuous efforts to find a long-term solution to financial problems. In January 1996, the UK made proposals—which are now a European Union initiative—to put the organisation back on a secure financial footing. They comprise measures to tighten penalties on non-payers; to accelerate repayment of arrears; to reform the scales of assessment to bring them more into line with the principle of capacity to pay; and to tighten controls on UN expenditure. We firmly believe that the EU proposals are the best solution offered, and we are lobbying member states for support.
A related challenge is the reform of the UN's institutions where there is a real need to revitalise the UN's system and make it more relevant for the future. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took a lead role at the G7 summit at Halifax last June in pressing for reform. The Halifax communiqué contained clear language on the need for more effective policy co-ordination within the economic and social areas of the UN's activities, the elimination of overlaps and streamlining of UN bodies, including a more transparent and accountable secretariat.
We have been working hard with our G8 and EU partners to achieve those goals. It is no mean feat to change an organisation as large as the UN, but progress is being made, I can assure my hon. Friend. There is an increasing acceptance by member states, including some key developing countries, and by the UN itself that reform is necessary and desirable so that the UN can more effectively meet the needs of its members.
However, a great deal more work is required. Mandates must be refocused, processes streamlined and modern management techniques introduced if the UN is to emerge as a credible international institution in the 21st century. Britain is pressing consistently across the spectrum of UN activities for the necessary reforms, and is constantly urging all others concerned about the UN to do the same.
I will refer briefly at this point to the subject of Britain rejoining UNESCO, which my hon. Friend has discussed with me; I know that he feels strongly about it. The Government keep that under constant review. No decision to rejoin has yet been taken, but, as my hon. Friend will know, we have recognised the reforms undertaken since we left in 1985. However, we believe that more still needs to be done—for example, a more focused approach, greater decentralisation and reduction of administrative costs. There is also an opportunity cost to the aid programme, which would have to be taken into account.
Britain has made proposals to strengthen UN peacekeeping to enable the UN to respond more rapidly to crises. We have seconded military officers to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Under a British initiative, we are now working with African states and the Organisation of African Unity to develop a framework within which African peacekeeping capabilities can be built up. Our efforts have been recognised and welcomed in Africa, and, together with the French, we have sought to overcome traditional Anglophone/Francophone barriers.
Improving the UN's preventive diplomacy capabilities is another area where we have been active. The UN needs to take effective action to prevent crises before they erupt. The preventive deployment in Macedonia shows what can be achieved. We have been active nationally. Under an initiative with the French, we provided the UN with a senior political adviser to assist the UN team mediating in the recent inter-Tajik peace talks. We have given the UN a representative list of those whom we would make available for preventive diplomacy initiatives. We look to the UN to make use of that list.
In his address to the UN General Assembly last autumn, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested that the UN adopt a new approach to peace-building called "UN programmes for transition and stabilisation ". The aim is to harness UN and international effort against clear aims.
We want to see a coherent approach to post-conflict peace-building which draws together political, peacekeeping, democratisation, humanitarian and development efforts within an overall framework. The UN mission in Haiti has been a particularly interesting model of an integrated approach. That will require UN departments and programmes to abandon their traditional barriers and work to a common aim—the United Nations Development Programme and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, together with Political Affairs.
Britain is also active in the debate on enlargement of the Security Council. That debate has been under way now for more than two years. There is a consensus in favour of enlargement. Germany and Japan have more support than others for permanent membership, but beyond that, no consensus yet exists on specifics. We believe that the time has come for real decisions. It is in the best interests of the council that the debate does not drag on.
My hon. Friend referred to human rights. I shall write to him on the question he posed. The UK is an active member of the Commission, and is involved in the negotiations on most resolutions. My fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), visited the Commission on 26 March, where he delivered a national statement and announced a further £1 million contribution to UN human rights field operations in Rwanda.
At the time of my visit to New York in 1990, there were 159 member states in the United Nations. In only five and a half years, that number has increased to 185. Such rapid change is not easy to manage, and it requires flexibility and determination. As the UN approaches the millennium, it must meet that challenge. To do so, it needs to put its house in order; it needs to adopt modern practices of administration and management; and it needs to adapt its public image to modern times, so that the media get the good news and the successes, not just the bad news. We will continue to play our part in helping the UN to adapt to the needs of the member states.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o ' clock.